If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Huffington Post)   The NRA is the Enabler of Death   (huffingtonpost.com) divider line 366
    More: Obvious, Bill Moyers, NRA, Andrews Air Force Base, mass shooting, second floor, TDKR, University of Colorado Hospital, Air Force One  
•       •       •

2294 clicks; posted to Politics » on 24 Jul 2012 at 10:48 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



366 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2012-07-24 10:51:16 AM
With numbers like those, I see your "Death" and raise you "Genocide".
 
2012-07-24 10:51:33 AM
You know, I'm so old I remember the NRA before Wayne LaPierre turned it into a hard-right political action group. Back in my day, it was a simple sportsmen's association.
 
2012-07-24 10:51:48 AM
The NRA is the Grim Reaper's drug dealer?
 
2012-07-24 10:52:16 AM
Turn the volume down from 11 guys. The guy was a nutbag. This is about as stupid as blaming the victims because they didn't have a shoot out in a dark crowded theater filled with tear gas.
 
2012-07-24 10:52:31 AM
They support law-abiding gun owners, right up until the point they stop abiding laws.
 
2012-07-24 10:52:44 AM
This is the result of working from a "no restrictions ever, under any circumstances" position and then bargaining from there.
 
2012-07-24 10:53:19 AM

Cletus C.: They support law-abiding gun owners, right up until the point they stop abiding laws.


I support Scottsmen, right up until they stop being Scottsmen.
 
2012-07-24 10:54:06 AM

Fart_Machine: Turn the volume down from 11 guys. The guy was a nutbag. This is about as stupid as blaming the victims because they didn't have a shoot out in a dark crowded theater filled with tear gas.


And you have no problem with a society turning its head as it allows this nutbag to start a small war in Aurora if he wanted to?

6000 rounds of ammo. The Nazis (yes, Poe in under 10!) tried to conserve bullets, but not in America!
 
2012-07-24 10:54:32 AM
Hunter S. Thompson, known gun freak who owned several weapons, wrote a lot of hilarious letters to the NRA.
 
2012-07-24 10:54:36 AM

Fart_Machine: Turn the volume down from 11 guys. The guy was a nutbag. This is about as stupid as blaming the victims because they didn't have a shoot out in a dark crowded theater filled with tear gas.


Both sides are bad so vote NRA.
 
2012-07-24 10:54:39 AM
The NRA is right, everyone should have access to guns. But bullets should cost a million dollars each.

/Rock 2012
 
2012-07-24 10:55:48 AM

Cletus C.: They support law-abiding gun owners, right up until the point they stop abiding laws.


At that point, wouldn't you say it's too late. Enabling is another form of support.

Just like according to Farq, it's apparently worse to call someone out for trolling than the act itself. That's enabling.... and I am so, so, so, so cool with that, yo.
 
2012-07-24 10:56:07 AM

Fart_Machine: Turn the volume down from 11 guys. The guy was a nutbag. This is about as stupid as blaming the victims because they didn't have a shoot out in a dark crowded theater filled with tear gas.


Nutbags are apparently unable to kill without guns. This will be just another war where rights of American citizens will be whittled away... War on Drugs, War on Poverty, War on Terror....War on Gun Ownership....
 
2012-07-24 10:56:12 AM
Yep.

The blood of shooting victims is on the NRA's hands as well as anyone who's ever donated money to them or voted for their candidates.
 
2012-07-24 10:57:20 AM
3.bp.blogspot.com

/says it all
 
2012-07-24 10:58:08 AM
Wasn't the Aurora shooter taking anti-psychotic meds? I remember reading something about him being on them, then taking himself off them prior to the shooting? Am I confusing this with another story?
 
2012-07-24 10:58:08 AM
Yeah, this isn't complete over-the-top hyperbole or anything.

I swear, the gun-grabbers are having a farking temper-tantrum now that they realize people actually value and wish to protect their rights. As a country, we're sick and tired of listening to the totalitarian bullshiat being spewed forth from idiots like Feinstein, Schumer, Bloomberg, et al.
 
2012-07-24 10:58:13 AM

slayer199: Fart_Machine: Turn the volume down from 11 guys. The guy was a nutbag. This is about as stupid as blaming the victims because they didn't have a shoot out in a dark crowded theater filled with tear gas.

Nutbags are apparently unable to kill without guns. This will be just another war where rights of American citizens will be whittled away... War on Drugs, War on Poverty, War on Terror....War on Gun Ownership....


I'm not disagreeing with the others, but what rights have been "whittled away" in the war on poverty?
 
2012-07-24 10:58:42 AM

coeyagi: Fart_Machine: Turn the volume down from 11 guys. The guy was a nutbag. This is about as stupid as blaming the victims because they didn't have a shoot out in a dark crowded theater filled with tear gas.

And you have no problem with a society turning its head as it allows this nutbag to start a small war in Aurora if he wanted to?

6000 rounds of ammo. The Nazis (yes, Poe in under 10!) tried to conserve bullets, but not in America!


As much as I have disagreements with the NRA this is a case where neither more or less gun laws wouldn't have made a difference since this guy had no criminal record.
 
2012-07-24 10:58:49 AM
OMG how mean! You're not allowed to talk about the gun lobby when a legal gun owner goes on another killing spree, people have feelings, you know?
 
2012-07-24 10:59:14 AM
Bill Moyers is actually the Tall Man

brettratnerourfavoritedirector.files.wordpress.com

And he is pissed.
 
2012-07-24 10:59:17 AM
Lot of obvious going on in this tab.


farm9.staticflickr.com
 
2012-07-24 10:59:22 AM
If only we had strict gun laws like Norway.
 
2012-07-24 10:59:23 AM
The NRA is totally weak, I want my right to bear arms without condition. Everybody is saying stopping the shooter with a gun would have been near impossible well that's why we need to carry grenades and flamethrowers. My rights are being taken away and the NRA does nothing.
 
2012-07-24 10:59:24 AM
Gun control is the theory that a dozen dead movie goers in a Colorado theater is morally and politically preferable to a live patron explaining to the police how James Holmes got shot.
 
2012-07-24 10:59:29 AM
They are simply the mouthpeice of the military industrial complex, which has taken over the U.S. government by profiteering off of 1/2 of our taxes and dominates our foreign policy to ensure we are directly or indirectly involved in the constant conflicts across the globe.

They do this all while fooling "conservatives" that their 2nd amendment rights are in jepardy.
 
2012-07-24 10:59:30 AM

coeyagi: Cletus C.: They support law-abiding gun owners, right up until the point they stop abiding laws.

At that point, wouldn't you say it's too late. Enabling is another form of support.

Just like according to Farq, it's apparently worse to call someone out for trolling than the act itself. That's enabling.... and I am so, so, so, so cool with that, yo.


What I'm saying, actually, is the NRA will fight to get guns into people's hands, then deny responsibility when some of those people start blasting away at humans.
 
2012-07-24 11:00:02 AM

The 4chan Psychiatrist: As a country, we're sick and tired of listening to the totalitarian bullshiat being spewed forth from idiots like Feinstein, Schumer, Bloomberg, et al.


We're sicker over gun massacres every few months.
 
2012-07-24 11:00:22 AM
Foreclosures, job destruction and starvation are the close friends of death.
Job destruction was in Death's wedding.
 
2012-07-24 11:00:38 AM

Lost Thought 00: This is the result of working from a "no restrictions ever, under any circumstances" position and then bargaining from there.


It's very simple. The NRA spent decades fighting for the right for untracked, unlicensed, untraceable and unrestricted guns to go into the hands of whoever wanted them.

Now, the line is "you can't restrict our guns, look at how many untracked, unlicensed, untraceable and unrestricted guns are in the hands of minorities God-knows-who!?".

Congrats America, you're dumb enough to follow the words of a group claiming to deal with a problem they themselves created.
 
2012-07-24 11:00:58 AM

The 4chan Psychiatrist: I swear, the gun-grabbers are having a farking temper-tantrum now that they realize people actually value and wish to protect their rights. As a country, we're sick and tired of listening to the totalitarian bullshiat being spewed forth from idiots like Feinstein, Schumer, Bloomberg, et al.


It's amazing you have the bravery to speak so freely. Don't worry, you can take shelter for a while in my hidden panic room if you need help escaping the thought police, who are surely looking to put you in one of their gulags.
 
2012-07-24 11:01:09 AM

Cletus C.: coeyagi: Cletus C.: They support law-abiding gun owners, right up until the point they stop abiding laws.

At that point, wouldn't you say it's too late. Enabling is another form of support.

Just like according to Farq, it's apparently worse to call someone out for trolling than the act itself. That's enabling.... and I am so, so, so, so cool with that, yo.

What I'm saying, actually, is the NRA will fight to get guns into people's hands, then deny responsibility when some of those people start blasting away at humans.


Yes, beyond all logic, I was indeed defending your statement and expanding it.
 
2012-07-24 11:01:11 AM

Primum: Yep.

The blood of shooting victims is on the NRA's hands as well as anyone who's ever donated money to them or voted for their candidates.


Back under your bridge you foul beast!
 
2012-07-24 11:01:38 AM

EyeballKid: Fart_Machine: Turn the volume down from 11 guys. The guy was a nutbag. This is about as stupid as blaming the victims because they didn't have a shoot out in a dark crowded theater filled with tear gas.

Both sides are bad so vote NRA.


Nope didn't say that either. Just trying to be consistent.
 
2012-07-24 11:01:46 AM
Yeah, and the Huffington Post is the Enabler of Derp.
 
2012-07-24 11:03:20 AM

Forced Perspective: Gun control is the theory that a dozen dead movie goers in a Colorado theater is morally and politically preferable to a live patron explaining to the police how James Holmes got shot.


This is the other side to the stupidity I was referring to.

You're not helping.
 
2012-07-24 11:04:04 AM

bigbadideasinaction: Congrats America, you're dumb enough to follow the words of a group claiming to deal with a problem they themselves created.


First, loose a rabid lion in the streets.
 
2012-07-24 11:04:42 AM

Fart_Machine: coeyagi: Fart_Machine: Turn the volume down from 11 guys. The guy was a nutbag. This is about as stupid as blaming the victims because they didn't have a shoot out in a dark crowded theater filled with tear gas.

And you have no problem with a society turning its head as it allows this nutbag to start a small war in Aurora if he wanted to?

6000 rounds of ammo. The Nazis (yes, Poe in under 10!) tried to conserve bullets, but not in America!

As much as I have disagreements with the NRA this is a case where neither more or less gun laws wouldn't have made a difference since this guy had no criminal record.


Yes, which is why maybe buying 6000 rounds of ammo itself should have raised questions.

I mean, if the Right Wingers think everyone should have voter IDs even though voter fraud is WAY less than 30,000 cases per year, why not have a little control over firearms which are used in 30,000 deaths per year?

Hey conservatives, just want to make sure I have your priorities right:

Sanctity of Fetus life > Sanctity of voting > Sanctity of human life
 
2012-07-24 11:04:50 AM
Thats right!!

Blame someone else for a persons crime!

Makes sense.
 
2012-07-24 11:05:04 AM

HotWingConspiracy: The 4chan Psychiatrist: As a country, we're sick and tired of listening to the totalitarian bullshiat being spewed forth from idiots like Feinstein, Schumer, Bloomberg, et al.

We're sicker over gun massacres every few months.


In all fairness, untreated mental illness as a result from inadequate healthcare coverage and a society that still stigmatizes such illness is far more to blame that guns.
 
2012-07-24 11:06:07 AM

slayer199: Fart_Machine: Turn the volume down from 11 guys. The guy was a nutbag. This is about as stupid as blaming the victims because they didn't have a shoot out in a dark crowded theater filled with tear gas.

Nutbags are apparently unable to kill without guns. This will be just another war where rights of American citizens will be whittled away... War on Drugs, War on Poverty, War on Terror....War on Gun Ownership....


Nobody is saying this. Nobody. It's rather hard to kill dozens of people at a time with a knife, ax, baseball bat, etc, and guns are easier than building a bomb or getting chemical weapons or whatever. I'm not anti-gun ownership, but to pretend that easy availability of guns don't make it easier for nutjobs to do shiat like this is stupid.
 
2012-07-24 11:08:19 AM

Fart_Machine: The guy was a nutbag.


The guy was a nutbag with guns. Plural.

I don't mind if non-nutbags have guns, but it just keeps happening that nutbags get their hands on guns and shoot up a bunch of innocent people. When are we as a society going to start taking the responsibilities of gun ownership seriously?
 
2012-07-24 11:09:04 AM
Oh boy another NRA thread today!

Let me take a stab at this:

Farker1: Guns are bad m'kay?

Farker2: Most gun are used safely, ya'll.

F1: These massacres couldn't have happened without guns m'kay.

F2: People will find a way to kill without guns y'all. Plus the massacre could have been prevented if others had guns too y'all.

F1: *Snarky comment about plausibility hypothetical situation* m'kay.

F2: *Snarky retort with complaint about absurd ineffective gun laws* y'all.

F1: *Derp and childish name calling* m'kay.

F2: *Derp and childish name calling* y'all

F3: Look! I found a way to feel superior to both!

/Thats the important part
 
2012-07-24 11:09:11 AM
www.bartcop.com
 
2012-07-24 11:09:19 AM
Dammit Moyers....AR15! not a flipping AK47. Please learn about what you are addressing before opening your mouth.
 
2012-07-24 11:09:20 AM

Forced Perspective: Gun control is the theory that a dozen dead movie goers in a Colorado theater is morally and politically preferable to a live patron explaining to the police how James Holmes got shot.


Ah, heroic fantasy, the first love of the idiot.
 
2012-07-24 11:09:34 AM

HotWingConspiracy: The 4chan Psychiatrist: As a country, we're sick and tired of listening to the totalitarian bullshiat being spewed forth from idiots like Feinstein, Schumer, Bloomberg, et al.

We're sicker over gun massacres every few months.


bigbadideasinaction: Lost Thought 00: This is the result of working from a "no restrictions ever, under any circumstances" position and then bargaining from there.

It's very simple. The NRA spent decades fighting for the right for untracked, unlicensed, untraceable and unrestricted guns to go into the hands of whoever wanted them.

Now, the line is "you can't restrict our guns, look at how many untracked, unlicensed, untraceable and unrestricted guns are in the hands of minorities God-knows-who!?".

Congrats America, you're dumb enough to follow the words of a group claiming to deal with a problem they themselves created.


All you guys fully support the TSA, and the Patriot Act, right?

I mean, gutting the Fourth Amendment is a small price to pay for the perceived safety that it would provide. After all, the blood of every dead American in 9/11 is smeared all over the hands of every single member of the ACLU.
 
2012-07-24 11:10:05 AM
No, no no, stop it right now. It's too soon.

We are not supposed to have this discussion right now. It's insensitive to the victims, or something. So just stop.

We can have this discussion later. How about immediately before the next unexpected mass slaughter? That will be acceptable.

OK, Mods, please shut down this thread.
 
2012-07-24 11:10:07 AM

qorkfiend: slayer199: Fart_Machine: Turn the volume down from 11 guys. The guy was a nutbag. This is about as stupid as blaming the victims because they didn't have a shoot out in a dark crowded theater filled with tear gas.

Nutbags are apparently unable to kill without guns. This will be just another war where rights of American citizens will be whittled away... War on Drugs, War on Poverty, War on Terror....War on Gun Ownership....

I'm not disagreeing with the others, but what rights have been "whittled away" in the war on poverty?


4th ammendmant, if you were poor and living in government housing you basically waved your rights by living there. The police did not need a warrant to enter the governments building.

/graduate of the Alabama projects in Paterson NJ.
 
2012-07-24 11:10:18 AM

El Freak: Nobody is saying this. Nobody. It's rather hard to kill dozens of people at a time with a knife, ax, baseball bat, etc, and guns are easier than building a bomb or getting chemical weapons or whatever. I'm not anti-gun ownership, but to pretend that easy availability of guns don't make it easier for nutjobs to do shiat like this is stupid.


It's pretty easy to kill a dozen people with a car...not to mention all the pollution. It's time for at least a 15 day waiting period. We should also outlaw the Prius. They're silent and can sneak up on you.
 
2012-07-24 11:10:28 AM

madgonad: Dammit Moyers....AR15! not a flipping AK47. Please learn about what you are addressing before opening your mouth.


Both are really fantastic ways to bring down deer and small game.
 
2012-07-24 11:10:33 AM

Citrate1007: HotWingConspiracy: The 4chan Psychiatrist: As a country, we're sick and tired of listening to the totalitarian bullshiat being spewed forth from idiots like Feinstein, Schumer, Bloomberg, et al.

We're sicker over gun massacres every few months.

In all fairness, untreated mental illness as a result from inadequate healthcare coverage and a society that still stigmatizes such illness is far more to blame that guns.


So it's the GOP platform.

No healthcare, more guns.

But yeah, I would disagree with that.
 
2012-07-24 11:10:44 AM
This is one of those laws that should be left up to cities and towns and counties. If you live in a rural area like me having a gun is useful and even if I was very unsafe with it chances are I won't shoot anyone. Densely populated cities need to make laws based on their population so if the people in those cities feel safer outlawing guns they should be allowed to.
 
2012-07-24 11:11:32 AM

The 4chan Psychiatrist: HotWingConspiracy: The 4chan Psychiatrist: As a country, we're sick and tired of listening to the totalitarian bullshiat being spewed forth from idiots like Feinstein, Schumer, Bloomberg, et al.

We're sicker over gun massacres every few months.

bigbadideasinaction: Lost Thought 00: This is the result of working from a "no restrictions ever, under any circumstances" position and then bargaining from there.

It's very simple. The NRA spent decades fighting for the right for untracked, unlicensed, untraceable and unrestricted guns to go into the hands of whoever wanted them.

Now, the line is "you can't restrict our guns, look at how many untracked, unlicensed, untraceable and unrestricted guns are in the hands of minorities God-knows-who!?".

Congrats America, you're dumb enough to follow the words of a group claiming to deal with a problem they themselves created.

All you guys fully support the TSA, and the Patriot Act, right?

I mean, gutting the Fourth Amendment is a small price to pay for the perceived safety that it would provide. After all, the blood of every dead American in 9/11 is smeared all over the hands of every single member of the ACLU.


Maybe 4chan is more your speed.
 
2012-07-24 11:11:52 AM
I have no problem with people owning guns. However the NRA has become a nee-jerk reactionary organization that uses fear and half truths to scare it's members into sending it checks.
 
2012-07-24 11:12:38 AM
I support Moyers and I think every Democrat should run on gun bans.
 
2012-07-24 11:13:20 AM
www.hotflick.net

We're having shirts made.
 
2012-07-24 11:13:30 AM

Amish Tech Support: I have no problem with people owning guns. However the NRA has become a nee-jerk reactionary organization that uses fear and half truths to scare it's members into sending it checks.


So, they've basically figured out how to do politics.
 
2012-07-24 11:15:43 AM

Scerpes: So, they've basically figured out how to do politics.


zing
 
2012-07-24 11:16:13 AM
If Thomas Wayne had a concealed weapon and had shot that guy outside the theater we wouldn't be having this discussion.
 
2012-07-24 11:16:20 AM
media.trb.com
"Remember Susie, humans are quite nimble but they have some major weak spots. For instance, if you get one in the femoral artery, then they can bleed out in under three minutes. Personally, I practice shooting them around the forehead or behind the ears - you know, in case I encounter a particularly violent one in those wild, disenfranchised neighborhoods."
 
2012-07-24 11:16:26 AM
Tom Tomorrow is correct: the occasional horrific civilian massacre is simply the price we'll have to pay in order to protect our freedoms.
 
2012-07-24 11:17:03 AM
If you really, genuinely want to know who has no interest in preserving anybody's rights in this debate, just listen for the use of the phrase "assault weapons." Pure and utter ignorance is the primary tool these people will use to further their agenda.

/Also of note: "AK-47 type weapon," "60 rounds per minute semi-automatic weapon"
 
2012-07-24 11:17:35 AM
How about if the left gives up on gun control if the right gives up on abortion? That would be awesome.
 
2012-07-24 11:17:39 AM
I once shot a man in Reno, just to watch him die, so I'm getting a kick out of these replies.
 
2012-07-24 11:18:47 AM

James F. Campbell: Tom Tomorrow is correct: the occasional horrific civilian massacre is simply the price we'll have to pay in order to protect our freedoms.


Well, the freedoms of those who survive, anyway.
 
2012-07-24 11:19:55 AM

coeyagi: Fart_Machine: coeyagi: Fart_Machine: Turn the volume down from 11 guys. The guy was a nutbag. This is about as stupid as blaming the victims because they didn't have a shoot out in a dark crowded theater filled with tear gas.

And you have no problem with a society turning its head as it allows this nutbag to start a small war in Aurora if he wanted to?

6000 rounds of ammo. The Nazis (yes, Poe in under 10!) tried to conserve bullets, but not in America!

As much as I have disagreements with the NRA this is a case where neither more or less gun laws wouldn't have made a difference since this guy had no criminal record.

Yes, which is why maybe buying 6000 rounds of ammo itself should have raised questions.

I mean, if the Right Wingers think everyone should have voter IDs even though voter fraud is WAY less than 30,000 cases per year, why not have a little control over firearms which are used in 30,000 deaths per year?

Hey conservatives, just want to make sure I have your priorities right:

Sanctity of Fetus life > Sanctity of voting > Sanctity of human life


FYI: We have approximately 1000 rounds in our gun safe - all purchased legally.

Part 1
Part 2
Part 3

I love these guys - even when they irritate me.
 
2012-07-24 11:19:59 AM

Nem Wan: How about if the left gives up on gun control if the right gives up on abortion? That would be awesome.


The left has given up on gun control. Now as a compromise, we're supposed to concede the abortion debate, too.

Compromise republican style.
 
2012-07-24 11:20:07 AM

coeyagi: madgonad: Dammit Moyers....AR15! not a flipping AK47. Please learn about what you are addressing before opening your mouth.

Both are really fantastic ways to bring down deer and small game.


Not Sure If Serious?
 
2012-07-24 11:21:07 AM

Citrate1007: HotWingConspiracy: The 4chan Psychiatrist: As a country, we're sick and tired of listening to the totalitarian bullshiat being spewed forth from idiots like Feinstein, Schumer, Bloomberg, et al.

We're sicker over gun massacres every few months.

In all fairness, untreated mental illness as a result from inadequate healthcare coverage and a society that still stigmatizes such illness is far more to blame that guns.


QFT
 
2012-07-24 11:21:48 AM

gilgigamesh: James F. Campbell: Tom Tomorrow is correct: the occasional horrific civilian massacre is simply the price we'll have to pay in order to protect our freedoms.

Well, the freedoms of those who survive, anyway.


The dead didn't deserve the freedom in the first place since they weren't armed.
 
2012-07-24 11:21:58 AM
When it comes to guns: We should not restrict anyone who wants a gun's rights to having a gun just because of the occasional psychopath who just coincidentally managed to wound or kill over a dozen people with a gun. Come on, we have this conversation every year when something like this happens with stunning regularity.

When it comes to Muslims: We should restrict everyone who is a Muslim's rights to religious expression and practice just because of the occasional psychopaths who just coincidentally happened to be Muslim when they killed several thousand people. Come on, we've had this conversation for over 11 years since that one incident happened.

/yes, yes, i'm fully aware that the comparison doesn't extend as far as i'm implying
//but it's something to consider
 
2012-07-24 11:22:34 AM
images.nymag.com

"Never let a crisis go to waste," right?
 
2012-07-24 11:22:52 AM

HotWingConspiracy: OMG how mean! You're not allowed to talk about the gun lobby when a legal gun owner goes on another killing spree, people have feelings, you know?


I mean, really, the true victim here is the NRA.
 
2012-07-24 11:22:56 AM

Nem Wan: How about if the left gives up on gun control if the right gives up on abortion? That would be awesome.


With the exception of Lautenberg (D-NJ), and a select few others, the left has given up on gun control.
 
2012-07-24 11:23:22 AM

beta_plus: If only we had strict gun laws like Norway.


Where one massacre has occurred in the past few decades, as opposed to...what's our number now?
 
2012-07-24 11:24:37 AM

The 4chan Psychiatrist: Citrate1007: HotWingConspiracy: The 4chan Psychiatrist: As a country, we're sick and tired of listening to the totalitarian bullshiat being spewed forth from idiots like Feinstein, Schumer, Bloomberg, et al.

We're sicker over gun massacres every few months.

In all fairness, untreated mental illness as a result from inadequate healthcare coverage and a society that still stigmatizes such illness is far more to blame that guns.

QFT


People who are crazy, don't think of themselves as crazy. They think they themselves are totally sane.

Alchoholics and drug users don;t think they have a problem either.

Ric Romero reporting.....
 
2012-07-24 11:24:41 AM

dlp211: Nem Wan: How about if the left gives up on gun control if the right gives up on abortion? That would be awesome.

With the exception of Lautenberg (D-NJ), and a select few others, the left has given up on gun control.


So then I can buy whatever firearms I want in California, Chicago, DC or NYC? The left hasn't given up on gun control, even if it's been relegated to the backseat for the moment.
 
2012-07-24 11:24:59 AM

The 4chan Psychiatrist: All you guys fully support the TSA, and the Patriot Act, right?

I mean, gutting the Fourth Amendment is a small price to pay for the perceived safety that it would provide. After all, the blood of every dead American in 9/11 is smeared all over the hands of every single member of the ACLU.


You need to back to Equivalence class.
 
2012-07-24 11:25:21 AM

dlp211: coeyagi: madgonad: Dammit Moyers....AR15! not a flipping AK47. Please learn about what you are addressing before opening your mouth.

Both are really fantastic ways to bring down deer and small game.

Not Sure If Serious?


Not serious. Sarcastic
 
2012-07-24 11:25:27 AM

coeyagi: Poe in under 10!


Godwin
 
2012-07-24 11:25:52 AM

StrikitRich: [images.nymag.com image 250x375]

"Never let a crisis go to waste," right?


msnbcmedia1.msn.com
"RIGHT!"
 
2012-07-24 11:26:06 AM

Scerpes: El Freak: Nobody is saying this. Nobody. It's rather hard to kill dozens of people at a time with a knife, ax, baseball bat, etc, and guns are easier than building a bomb or getting chemical weapons or whatever. I'm not anti-gun ownership, but to pretend that easy availability of guns don't make it easier for nutjobs to do shiat like this is stupid.

It's pretty easy to kill a dozen people with a car...not to mention all the pollution. It's time for at least a 15 day waiting period. We should also outlaw the Prius. They're silent and can sneak up on you.


When cars are designed specifically to kill, you will have a point.

Or, even better - maybe we should use guns for everyday activities - use one to drive nails, put a smartphone in the grip...then they'll have a use other than killing.
 
2012-07-24 11:26:45 AM
"Every year there are 30,000 gun deaths and 300,000 gun-related assaults in the U.S."

But well over 90% of those could have been prevented if the victims were carrying a bazooka.
 
2012-07-24 11:27:15 AM
25.media.tumblr.com
 
2012-07-24 11:27:41 AM

StrikitRich: [images.nymag.com image 250x375]

"Never let a crisis go to waste," right?


eyreinternationaldotorg.files.wordpress.com
 
2012-07-24 11:27:48 AM

rufus-t-firefly: When cars are designed specifically to kill, you will have a point.


Alchohol is designed to impair your judgement......lets start there.
 
2012-07-24 11:28:05 AM

Scerpes: dlp211: Nem Wan: How about if the left gives up on gun control if the right gives up on abortion? That would be awesome.

With the exception of Lautenberg (D-NJ), and a select few others, the left has given up on gun control.

So then I can buy whatever firearms I want in California, Chicago, DC or NYC? The left hasn't given up on gun control, even if it's been relegated to the backseat for the moment.


Don't forget Massachusetts.

"As Massachusetts governor in 2004, Romney signed into law an assault weapons ban that was backed by gun owners and gun control advocates. The Massachusetts law banned the AR-15, one of the weapons that police say was used inside the Colorado theater on Friday."

Mitt Romney - leftist gun-grabber.
 
2012-07-24 11:28:15 AM

rufus-t-firefly: beta_plus: If only we had strict gun laws like Norway.

Where one massacre has occurred in the past few decades, as opposed to...what's our number now?


We also have higher knife crime and a greater incidence of unarmed assault than Norway, statistically pretty much along the same line. Not sure how you're blaming a general trend of higher crime that may or may not involve guns on guns, but I guess idiots will be idiots.
 
2012-07-24 11:28:53 AM

Scerpes: So then I can buy whatever firearms I want in California, Chicago, DC or NYC? The left hasn't given up on gun control, even if it's been relegated to the backseat for the moment.


Ah yes. "The left isn't talking about gun control anymore because they are waiting to lull you into a false sense of security and then BLAMMO! Right when you least expect it, THAT'S when they will come to take away all your guns! Now please make that check payable to the NRA."
 
2012-07-24 11:29:01 AM

Giltric: rufus-t-firefly: When cars are designed specifically to kill, you will have a point.

Alchohol is designed to impair your judgement......lets start there.


But you can use that impairment to get laid. There's a positive.
 
2012-07-24 11:29:12 AM
Wow, Christians have extended their Fear and Death cult to every aspect of American society? Color me shocked.
 
2012-07-24 11:29:43 AM
12 dead and 80 wounded

farking .223.
 
2012-07-24 11:29:44 AM

rufus-t-firefly: beta_plus: If only we had strict gun laws like Norway.

Where one massacre has occurred in the past few decades, as opposed to...what's our number now?


If only there was someway to adjust by population size. If only ...
 
2012-07-24 11:30:22 AM

indoorplant: [25.media.tumblr.com image 718x720]


Seems to work quite well in the UK and other countries with strict gun-control laws.
 
2012-07-24 11:30:24 AM

Headso: This is one of those laws that should be left up to cities and towns and counties. If you live in a rural area like me having a gun is useful and even if I was very unsafe with it chances are I won't shoot anyone. Densely populated cities need to make laws based on their population so if the people in those cities feel safer outlawing guns they should be allowed to.


This is where the Supreme Court's decision in the McDonald case failed. Historically, local jurisdictions had broad discretion to regulate firearms within their borders, and I think that's exactly what the militia clause of the Second Amendment was intended to recognize. There was no textual or historical basis for finding that the Second Amendment was properly subject to incorporation through the Fourteenth.
 
2012-07-24 11:30:54 AM
I would love to put this quote on an Obama pic and post it to Facebook, just to see the reactions.

"my position is we should check on the backgrounds of people who are trying to purchase guns. We also should keep weapons of unusual lethality from being on the street."
 
2012-07-24 11:32:00 AM
As a liberal, I can safely say that if assualt rifles were banned, James Holmes would just have stocked up on shotguns and pistols, with the same deadly outcome.
 
2012-07-24 11:32:37 AM

platedlizard: indoorplant: [25.media.tumblr.com image 718x720]

Seems to work quite well in the UK and other countries with strict gun-control laws.


Yes, but those are not 'Murka! They don't have free swinging giant penises and are God's chosen people of liberty and exceptionalism! We're too individualistic to be tied down by such tyranny! We'd rather keep getting killed en masse!
 
2012-07-24 11:32:41 AM

She comes in colors everywhere: coeyagi: Poe in under 10!

Godwin


Sorry, thank you. Getting my laws mixed up. MOAR coffee.
 
2012-07-24 11:32:41 AM
I'm actually thinking about buying an AR-15 pattern rifle. Any advise on what I should buy? My budget is $1000.
 
2012-07-24 11:32:51 AM

indoorplant: [25.media.tumblr.com image 718x720]


James Holmes is a legal gun owner.
 
2012-07-24 11:32:54 AM
 
2012-07-24 11:32:54 AM

beta_plus: rufus-t-firefly: beta_plus: If only we had strict gun laws like Norway.

Where one massacre has occurred in the past few decades, as opposed to...what's our number now?

If only there was someway to adjust by population size. If only ...


And it turns out your original point was bullshiat anyway.

Gun ownership in Norway as 31.32 firearms per 100 people.

The US has 88.8 per 100.

So, our firearm massacres should be proportionally higher - not exponentially.
 
2012-07-24 11:33:16 AM

fracto73: "my position is we should check on the backgrounds of people who are trying to purchase guns


They do. It's called a NICS check and it is run by the feds.
 
2012-07-24 11:33:19 AM

rufus-t-firefly: Scerpes: El Freak: Nobody is saying this. Nobody. It's rather hard to kill dozens of people at a time with a knife, ax, baseball bat, etc, and guns are easier than building a bomb or getting chemical weapons or whatever. I'm not anti-gun ownership, but to pretend that easy availability of guns don't make it easier for nutjobs to do shiat like this is stupid.

It's pretty easy to kill a dozen people with a car...not to mention all the pollution. It's time for at least a 15 day waiting period. We should also outlaw the Prius. They're silent and can sneak up on you.

When cars are designed specifically to kill, you will have a point.


Also, last time I checked I am required to have a license to operate a car. I am also required to carry five figures worth of liability insurance, and there are strict laws regulating my use of my vehicle, and if I don't follow them, I can lose my privilege to drive it.
 
2012-07-24 11:33:46 AM

Scerpes: dlp211: Nem Wan: How about if the left gives up on gun control if the right gives up on abortion? That would be awesome.

With the exception of Lautenberg (D-NJ), and a select few others, the left has given up on gun control.

So then I can buy whatever firearms I want in California, Chicago, DC or NYC? The left hasn't given up on gun control, even if it's been relegated to the backseat for the moment.


No, it absolutely has at the Federal Level. It hasn't taken a back seat. There hasn't been any significant gun control legislation brought before congress for a vote in nearly 2 decades. Just because old laws are still in effect doesn't meant that Dems are continuing to pursue gun legislation, for the most part, they have given up on gun control and recognize it is not a winning argument. But I guess the qualifier, " a select few others" wasn't good enough for you.
 
2012-07-24 11:34:50 AM

Frank N Stein: I'm actually thinking about buying an AR-15 pattern rifle. Any advise on what I should buy? My budget is $1000.


Buy a 3d printer and make your own out of ABS. The plans are available online.

Actually...buy a 3D printer, use it to make more 3D printers and then use them to make lots of lower recievers.
 
2012-07-24 11:34:52 AM

Giltric: fracto73: "my position is we should check on the backgrounds of people who are trying to purchase guns

They do. It's called a NICS check and it is run by the feds.


Yes. The statement was in support of background checks, not pretending they don't happen.
 
2012-07-24 11:35:26 AM

Forced Perspective: Gun control is the theory that a dozen dead movie goers in a Colorado theater is morally and politically preferable to a live patron explaining to the police how James Holmes got shot.


This is actual a point that confuses me. We have virtually unrestricted gun access, so theoretically any number of these heroic fantasies should have been played out. Can anyone point to a single time in which some gun-toting civilian actually stopped a mass shooting? Because I think I missed the news where patrons explained how Holmes got shot.

Or do we actually have to have forced gun carrying in order to "ensure our safety"?
 
2012-07-24 11:36:35 AM

indoorplant: [25.media.tumblr.com image 718x720]


news.bbc.co.uk

qph.cf.quoracdn.net
 
2012-07-24 11:36:42 AM

bujin: Can anyone point to a single time in which some gun-toting civilian actually stopped a mass shooting?


bujin: Can anyone point to a single time in which some gun-toting civilian actually stopped a mass shooting?


bujin: Can anyone point to a single time in which some gun-toting civilian actually stopped a mass shooting?

 
2012-07-24 11:36:52 AM

rufus-t-firefly: Scerpes: El Freak: Nobody is saying this. Nobody. It's rather hard to kill dozens of people at a time with a knife, ax, baseball bat, etc, and guns are easier than building a bomb or getting chemical weapons or whatever. I'm not anti-gun ownership, but to pretend that easy availability of guns don't make it easier for nutjobs to do shiat like this is stupid.

It's pretty easy to kill a dozen people with a car...not to mention all the pollution. It's time for at least a 15 day waiting period. We should also outlaw the Prius. They're silent and can sneak up on you.

When cars are designed specifically to kill, you will have a point.

Or, even better - maybe we should use guns for everyday activities - use one to drive nails, put a smartphone in the grip...then they'll have a use other than killing.


rufus-t-firefly: Scerpes: El Freak: Nobody is saying this. Nobody. It's rather hard to kill dozens of people at a time with a knife, ax, baseball bat, etc, and guns are easier than building a bomb or getting chemical weapons or whatever. I'm not anti-gun ownership, but to pretend that easy availability of guns don't make it easier for nutjobs to do shiat like this is stupid.

It's pretty easy to kill a dozen people with a car...not to mention all the pollution. It's time for at least a 15 day waiting period. We should also outlaw the Prius. They're silent and can sneak up on you.

When cars are designed specifically to kill, you will have a point.

Or, even better - maybe we should use guns for everyday activities - use one to drive nails, put a smartphone in the grip...then they'll have a use other than killing.


Cars aren't even designed to kill, and take more lives than firearms anyway. They're simply too dangerous for you to own.
 
2012-07-24 11:37:46 AM
I like you, Bill, but WRONG.

just look around the world at the Nations where gun ownership by citizens is illegal. they are all Totalitarian sh*tholes with no middle class. just lots of dirt poor and 1 or 2% who own everything.

u can't have a Democratic Republic without an armed citizenry and without a literate citizenry.

you're welome.
 
2012-07-24 11:37:49 AM

gilgigamesh: I am also required to carry five figures worth of liability insurance


The cheapest way to get liability insurance for gun accidents is to join the NRA.
 
2012-07-24 11:38:17 AM

Frank N Stein: I'm actually thinking about buying an AR-15 pattern rifle. Any advise on what I should buy? My budget is $1000.


Check out Rock River Arms
 
2012-07-24 11:38:59 AM

Scerpes: Cars aren't even designed to kill, and take more lives than firearms anyway. They're simply too dangerous for you to own.


some densely populated areas don't allow cars.
 
2012-07-24 11:39:19 AM

gilgigamesh: rufus-t-firefly: Scerpes: El Freak: Nobody is saying this. Nobody. It's rather hard to kill dozens of people at a time with a knife, ax, baseball bat, etc, and guns are easier than building a bomb or getting chemical weapons or whatever. I'm not anti-gun ownership, but to pretend that easy availability of guns don't make it easier for nutjobs to do shiat like this is stupid.

It's pretty easy to kill a dozen people with a car...not to mention all the pollution. It's time for at least a 15 day waiting period. We should also outlaw the Prius. They're silent and can sneak up on you.

When cars are designed specifically to kill, you will have a point.

Also, last time I checked I am required to have a license to operate a car. I am also required to carry five figures worth of liability insurance, and there are strict laws regulating my use of my vehicle, and if I don't follow them, I can lose my privilege to drive it.


You have to pass a background check...face it, a clean background as determined by a NICS is a license to own a firearm. Some staes even make you pay in order to recieve a piece of paper...but all a physical license or firearms ID card is is revenue for the state.
It is illegal to commit a crime with a gun....ie there are regulations.
 
2012-07-24 11:39:25 AM

Tyrano Soros: As a liberal, I can safely say that if assualt rifles were banned, James Holmes would just have stocked up on shotguns and pistols, with the same deadly outcome.


Rank speculation. You can't possibly know what would have happened in your little "what if" scenario.

All we can say is what did happen: under current laws, this guy was allowed to purchase enough firepower and armor to enable him murder and maim dozens of people within 2 minutes, and probably a lot more had he chosen to do so.

Speculating about what he could have done with bombs or shotguns or rocks or whatever is less than useless. In fact it is a cheap attempt at deflection from what actually happened.
 
2012-07-24 11:39:29 AM

Giltric: fracto73: "my position is we should check on the backgrounds of people who are trying to purchase guns

They do. It's called a NICS check and it is run by the feds.


It wasn't said by Obama, that is what was funny about it.
 
2012-07-24 11:39:37 AM

gilgigamesh: rufus-t-firefly: Scerpes: El Freak: Nobody is saying this. Nobody. It's rather hard to kill dozens of people at a time with a knife, ax, baseball bat, etc, and guns are easier than building a bomb or getting chemical weapons or whatever. I'm not anti-gun ownership, but to pretend that easy availability of guns don't make it easier for nutjobs to do shiat like this is stupid.

It's pretty easy to kill a dozen people with a car...not to mention all the pollution. It's time for at least a 15 day waiting period. We should also outlaw the Prius. They're silent and can sneak up on you.

When cars are designed specifically to kill, you will have a point.

Also, last time I checked I am required to have a license to operate a car. I am also required to carry five figures worth of liability insurance, and there are strict laws regulating my use of my vehicle, and if I don't follow them, I can lose my privilege to drive it.


I'd be completely in favor of a handgun licenses that would be recognized by all states, and require minimum standards similar to driver's licenses.
 
2012-07-24 11:39:39 AM

Cletus C.: They support law-abiding gun owners, right up until the point they stop abiding laws.



well said. anyone who thinks guns, not trigger happy nuts, kill people are living in a fantasy world.
 
2012-07-24 11:39:41 AM

Linux_Yes: u can't have a Democratic Republic without an armed citizenry and without a literate citizenry.


So, when's the citizenry going to get literate?
 
2012-07-24 11:39:51 AM

rufus-t-firefly: Can anyone point to a single time in which some gun-toting civilian actually stopped a mass shooting?


I can't. I don't know if the police have ever done it.
 
2012-07-24 11:40:04 AM

Linux_Yes: I like you, Bill, but WRONG.

just look around the world at the Nations where gun ownership by citizens is illegal. they are all Totalitarian sh*tholes with no middle class. just lots of dirt poor and 1 or 2% who own everything.

u can't have a Democratic Republic without an armed citizenry and without a literate citizenry.

you're welome.


SO what's our excuse then
 
2012-07-24 11:40:19 AM

Linux_Yes: I like you, Bill, but WRONG.

just look around the world at the Nations where gun ownership by citizens is illegal. they are all Totalitarian sh*tholes with no middle class. just lots of dirt poor and 1 or 2% who own everything.

u can't have a Democratic Republic without an armed citizenry and without a literate citizenry.

you're welome.



Canada, Japan, Australia. What a bunch of sh*tholes. USA! USA! USA!
 
2012-07-24 11:40:21 AM

Linux_Yes: I like you, Bill, but WRONG.

just look around the world at the Nations where gun ownership by citizens is illegal. they are all Totalitarian sh*tholes with no middle class. just lots of dirt poor and 1 or 2% who own everything.

u can't have a Democratic Republic without an armed citizenry and without a literate citizenry.

you're welome.


Does it have to be a choice between "no guns" and "totally unregulated access"? Isn't there a reasonable middle?
 
2012-07-24 11:40:25 AM

Headso: Scerpes: Cars aren't even designed to kill, and take more lives than firearms anyway. They're simply too dangerous for you to own.

some densely populated areas don't allow cars.


What cities have outlawed cars?
 
2012-07-24 11:41:34 AM

gilgigamesh: Tyrano Soros: As a liberal, I can safely say that if assualt rifles were banned, James Holmes would just have stocked up on shotguns and pistols, with the same deadly outcome.

Rank speculation. You can't possibly know what would have happened in your little "what if" scenario.

All we can say is what did happen: under current laws, this guy was allowed to purchase enough firepower and armor to enable him murder and maim dozens of people within 2 minutes, and probably a lot more had he chosen to do so.

Speculating about what he could have done with bombs or shotguns or rocks or whatever is less than useless. In fact it is a cheap attempt at deflection from what actually happened.


Actually it seems that his baby killing assault rifle was ineffective, plagued with jamming issues. Which is why he switched to his other arms (shotgun, pistol)

But don't let that stop yor crusade, champ
 
2012-07-24 11:41:49 AM

EyeballKid: So, when's the citizenry going to get literate?


This is a pretty good gun control thread. Which is kind of like the best smelling fart, I admit.
 
2012-07-24 11:42:03 AM

rufus-t-firefly: bujin: Can anyone point to a single time in which some gun-toting civilian actually stopped a mass shooting?

bujin: Can anyone point to a single time in which some gun-toting civilian actually stopped a mass shooting?

bujin: Can anyone point to a single time in which some gun-toting civilian actually stopped a mass shooting?


Mass shooting? That sounds nuanced. How many mass shootings have their been in the last 50 years?
 
2012-07-24 11:42:18 AM

rufus-t-firefly: When cars are designed specifically to kill, you will have a point.


Kind of like abortions.
 
2012-07-24 11:43:09 AM

the_foo: zappaisfrank:

[gritartisan.files.wordpress.com image 400x225]


Tell me where the Tom Tomorrow cartoon advocated gun restrictions.

I'll wait...
 
2012-07-24 11:44:13 AM

rufus-t-firefly: bujin: Can anyone point to a single time in which some gun-toting civilian actually stopped a mass shooting?

bujin: Can anyone point to a single time in which some gun-toting civilian actually stopped a mass shooting?

bujin: Can anyone point to a single time in which some gun-toting civilian actually stopped a mass shooting?


That's easy. There was example just a few days ago.

There is even video

Oh and then there is this but I stopped at two because I'm only going to spend 30 seconds googling for you because your lazy.
 
2012-07-24 11:44:35 AM

rufus-t-firefly: bujin: Can anyone point to a single time in which some gun-toting civilian actually stopped a mass shooting?

bujin: Can anyone point to a single time in which some gun-toting civilian actually stopped a mass shooting?

bujin: Can anyone point to a single time in which some gun-toting civilian actually stopped a mass shooting?


Yes

Yes

Yes


Though it's hard to tell if a shooting would have been a "mass" shooting when it was stopped.
 
2012-07-24 11:44:40 AM

Frank N Stein: I'm actually thinking about buying an AR-15 pattern rifle. Any advise on what I should buy? My budget is $1000.


Save up a little more money, like a few hundred and then you start to get into the market where AR-15s fall. I have Rock River Arms version. Lovely rifle. Luckily the price has really dropped from the "OMG Obama is going to take away all the guns the second he is elected, so lets buy at double the price" scare of 2008.
 
2012-07-24 11:45:03 AM

Linux_Yes: Scerpes: JRoo: Buy more guns gunfags.

You sound stupid.


he hasn't yet lived in a Totalitarian sh*thole where gun ownership is illegal and 1 to 2% of the population own everything and everyone else lives in shanty town tents.

you cannot have Democracy without an armed citizenry and without a literate citizenry.


Japan says hi. As well as the UK
 
2012-07-24 11:45:46 AM

Giltric: You have to pass a background check...face it, a clean background as determined by a NICS is a license to own a firearm. Some staes even make you pay in order to recieve a piece of paper...but all a physical license or firearms ID card is is revenue for the state.
It is illegal to commit a crime with a gun....ie there are regulations.


Not if I go to a gun show or buy from a private seller.

And no, even when I have to get one, a background check is not a license. That is farking laughable. A license requires passing various tests and is subject to renewal requirements and revocation.

Also, it sounds like you are suggesting there is some comparison to regulations on operating a car. If you think the only regulation on a license to drive is "don't kill anyone", remind me to never get in a car with you.
 
2012-07-24 11:46:29 AM

EyeballKid: Linux_Yes: u can't have a Democratic Republic without an armed citizenry and without a literate citizenry.

So, when's the citizenry going to get literate?



when we take back our "free press" from the corporate owned "news" and we start investing again in our Public schools. simple, really. but the wealthy/big business does not have any interest in that. they send their mice to private schools.
 
2012-07-24 11:47:44 AM
The NRA has one purpose: to sell as many guns as possible. To that end, they'll do anything they can to increase the paranoia level, and to make people be afraid of each other.
 
2012-07-24 11:48:47 AM

Frank N Stein: Actually it seems that his baby killing assault rifle was ineffective, plagued with jamming issues. Which is why he switched to his other arms (shotgun, pistol)

But don't let that stop yor crusade, champ


Oh, you were there? Because that is the only way I can think of that you would know what actually happened and what is bullshiat hearsay.
 
2012-07-24 11:49:40 AM

Scerpes: Headso: Scerpes: Cars aren't even designed to kill, and take more lives than firearms anyway. They're simply too dangerous for you to own.

some densely populated areas don't allow cars.

What cities have outlawed cars?


certain parts of cities have closed roads in favor of walking traffic because cars in those areas are too dangerous to the numbers of pedestrians.
 
2012-07-24 11:51:18 AM

coeyagi: Cletus C.: coeyagi: Cletus C.: They support law-abiding gun owners, right up until the point they stop abiding laws.

At that point, wouldn't you say it's too late. Enabling is another form of support.

Just like according to Farq, it's apparently worse to call someone out for trolling than the act itself. That's enabling.... and I am so, so, so, so cool with that, yo.

What I'm saying, actually, is the NRA will fight to get guns into people's hands, then deny responsibility when some of those people start blasting away at humans.

Yes, beyond all logic, I was indeed defending your statement and expanding it.


It's kind of nice we don't have to disagree all the time. But you may disagree with that.
 
2012-07-24 11:51:25 AM
This witch hunt against the NRA speaks to a large issue of the progressive mindset and that is to exonerate the individual from bearing any responsibility for the tragedy.

Columbine was marilyn Manson's fault - not Kliebobld and Harris
the Ft hood shooting was a "workplace stress incident" not a mass murder
Susan Smith drowning her kids was a medical issue
The aurora shooting is the NRA's fault
The Giffords shooting was the fault of the Tea party
 
2012-07-24 11:51:47 AM

CPennypacker: Linux_Yes: I like you, Bill, but WRONG.

just look around the world at the Nations where gun ownership by citizens is illegal. they are all Totalitarian sh*tholes with no middle class. just lots of dirt poor and 1 or 2% who own everything.

u can't have a Democratic Republic without an armed citizenry and without a literate citizenry.

you're welome.

SO what's our excuse then



allowing Corporate hacks/Business to take over our "news" and allowing 20,000 lobbyist into D.C. to buy off our Legislators so they can skew our system to get what they want at our expense. start reinvesting in our public schools again, but we need rich Turds to start paying the taxes they owe and to stop sending our jobs overseas. chinese workers don't pay american taxes. also, it would be nice if the wealthy stop sending the money they "earn" here to overseas tax shelters.


America is a victim of unbridled Capitalism. you've seen the benefits of measured capitalism (with government setting and enforcing some ground rules that everyone plays by) over the years, wait until you see the dark side of unbridled capitalism. its gonn'a be a gas, man!
 
2012-07-24 11:52:18 AM

gilgigamesh: Frank N Stein: Actually it seems that his baby killing assault rifle was ineffective, plagued with jamming issues. Which is why he switched to his other arms (shotgun, pistol)

But don't let that stop yor crusade, champ

Oh, you were there? Because that is the only way I can think of that you would know what actually happened and what is bullshiat hearsay.


So now all the reports of the gun jamming is 'bullshiat hearsay'?

Nice. You are just showing how weak your arguments are.
 
2012-07-24 11:52:34 AM

gilgigamesh: Giltric: You have to pass a background check...face it, a clean background as determined by a NICS is a license to own a firearm. Some staes even make you pay in order to recieve a piece of paper...but all a physical license or firearms ID card is is revenue for the state.
It is illegal to commit a crime with a gun....ie there are regulations.

Not if I go to a gun show or buy from a private seller.

And no, even when I have to get one, a background check is not a license. That is farking laughable. A license requires passing various tests and is subject to renewal requirements and revocation.

Also, it sounds like you are suggesting there is some comparison to regulations on operating a car. If you think the only regulation on a license to drive is "don't kill anyone", remind me to never get in a car with you.


If you buy a gun at a gun show from an FFL, you still need to pass a background check. Only private sales are privy to lack of background check, and that can be limited by state law.
 
2012-07-24 11:52:53 AM

o5iiawah: This witch hunt against the NRA speaks to a large issue of the progressive mindset and that is to exonerate the individual from bearing any responsibility for the tragedy.

Columbine was marilyn Manson's fault - not Kliebobld and Harris
the Ft hood shooting was a "workplace stress incident" not a mass murder
Susan Smith drowning her kids was a medical issue
The aurora shooting is the NRA's fault
The Giffords shooting was the fault of the Tea party


Whom can I blame for that abortion of a post? Home schooling?
 
2012-07-24 11:53:28 AM

limeyfellow: Frank N Stein: I'm actually thinking about buying an AR-15 pattern rifle. Any advise on what I should buy? My budget is $1000.

Save up a little more money, like a few hundred and then you start to get into the market where AR-15s fall. I have Rock River Arms version. Lovely rifle. Luckily the price has really dropped from the "OMG Obama is going to take away all the guns the second he is elected, so lets buy at double the price" scare of 2008.


Yeah I've heard some good things about RRA. I'll have to look into it.

I'm trying to figure out if building one would be cost effective. So far I doubt it, so I'll probably just buy the complete baby killing assault rifle with the shoulder thing that goes up and hi cap assault clips ;)
 
2012-07-24 11:53:40 AM

gilgigamesh: Giltric: You have to pass a background check...face it, a clean background as determined by a NICS is a license to own a firearm. Some staes even make you pay in order to recieve a piece of paper...but all a physical license or firearms ID card is is revenue for the state.
It is illegal to commit a crime with a gun....ie there are regulations.

Not if I go to a gun show or buy from a private seller.

And no, even when I have to get one, a background check is not a license. That is farking laughable. A license requires passing various tests and is subject to renewal requirements and revocation.

Also, it sounds like you are suggesting there is some comparison to regulations on operating a car. If you think the only regulation on a license to drive is "don't kill anyone", remind me to never get in a car with you.


The test would be a criminally history....no crimnal history then you pass the test.

The dealer at a gun show will do a NICS check on you....the private seller may be breaking the law in his state.

Are you talking about buying guns through experience or based on what someones blog said?

There are more regualtions when dealing with firearms....for instance in some states when transporting to and from the range the weapon has to be disassembled and you can not stop anywhere in bewteen your home and the range. You may not even be able to bring ammo and the firearm in the same vehicle.....
 
2012-07-24 11:55:40 AM

o5iiawah: This witch hunt against the NRA


AHHHHHH HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA !

Yes, who will stand up for the poor defenseless NRA when they are targeted like this?

Won't someone please think of the victims in the pro-gun lobby? They are only the most ruthlessly effective lobbying industry the world has ever seen. What will ever become of them?
 
2012-07-24 11:56:19 AM

gilgigamesh: Frank N Stein: Actually it seems that his baby killing assault rifle was ineffective, plagued with jamming issues. Which is why he switched to his other arms (shotgun, pistol)

But don't let that stop yor crusade, champ

Oh, you were there? Because that is the only way I can think of that you would know what actually happened and what is bullshiat hearsay.


Google search "James Holmes gun jam"
 
2012-07-24 11:57:20 AM

coeyagi: Fart_Machine: coeyagi: Fart_Machine: Turn the volume down from 11 guys. The guy was a nutbag. This is about as stupid as blaming the victims because they didn't have a shoot out in a dark crowded theater filled with tear gas.

And you have no problem with a society turning its head as it allows this nutbag to start a small war in Aurora if he wanted to?

6000 rounds of ammo. The Nazis (yes, Poe in under 10!) tried to conserve bullets, but not in America!

As much as I have disagreements with the NRA this is a case where neither more or less gun laws wouldn't have made a difference since this guy had no criminal record.

Yes, which is why maybe buying 6000 rounds of ammo itself should have raised questions.


Can someone please explain to me why my name goes into a data base when I buy cold medicine, but not when I buy a semi-automatic gun?
 
2012-07-24 11:57:53 AM

o5iiawah: This witch hunt against the NRA speaks to a large issue of the progressive mindset and that is to exonerate the individual from bearing any responsibility for the tragedy.

Columbine was marilyn Manson's fault - not Kliebobld and Harris
the Ft hood shooting was a "workplace stress incident" not a mass murder
Susan Smith drowning her kids was a medical issue
The aurora shooting is the NRA's fault
The Giffords shooting was the fault of the Tea party



Maybe it's the fault of our lack of a physical/mental healthcare system. "Oh, you haven't ACTUALLY done any of the horrible things you are obsessing about? Want to buy some guns so you can destroy your invisible enemies?"
 
2012-07-24 11:58:16 AM

Frank N Stein: limeyfellow: Frank N Stein: I'm actually thinking about buying an AR-15 pattern rifle. Any advise on what I should buy? My budget is $1000.

Save up a little more money, like a few hundred and then you start to get into the market where AR-15s fall. I have Rock River Arms version. Lovely rifle. Luckily the price has really dropped from the "OMG Obama is going to take away all the guns the second he is elected, so lets buy at double the price" scare of 2008.

Yeah I've heard some good things about RRA. I'll have to look into it.

I'm trying to figure out if building one would be cost effective. So far I doubt it, so I'll probably just buy the complete baby killing assault rifle with the shoulder thing that goes up and hi cap assault clips ;)


I think all of the lower recievers available are made by maybe 2 or 3 companies who then sell to RRA or Stag or whoever.

I don;t think the lower matters as much as the upper does as far as accuracy goes.

Maybe get a cheap lower and a real good upper.
 
2012-07-24 11:58:31 AM

Frank N Stein: gilgigamesh: Frank N Stein: Actually it seems that his baby killing assault rifle was ineffective, plagued with jamming issues. Which is why he switched to his other arms (shotgun, pistol)

But don't let that stop yor crusade, champ

Oh, you were there? Because that is the only way I can think of that you would know what actually happened and what is bullshiat hearsay.

Google search "James Holmes gun jam"


Google "hearsay".
 
2012-07-24 11:58:45 AM

poot_rootbeer: Fart_Machine: The guy was a nutbag.

The guy was a nutbag with guns. Plural.

I don't mind if non-nutbags have guns, but it just keeps happening that nutbags get their hands on guns and shoot up a bunch of innocent people. When are we as a society going to start taking the responsibilities of gun ownership seriously?


Given that we will never make all gun ownership illegal there really is no solution to this. The vast majority of gun owners are responsible. Likewise homicidal nutbags will still exist in society. We put mechanisms in place but there will always be those who slip through the cracks.
 
2012-07-24 11:59:15 AM

gilgigamesh: o5iiawah: This witch hunt against the NRA

AHHHHHH HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA !

Yes, who will stand up for the poor defenseless NRA when they are targeted like this?

Won't someone please think of the victims in the pro-gun lobby? They are only the most ruthlessly effective lobbying industry the world has ever seen. What will ever become of them?


The NRA gets it money from members so they can protect the members from restrictive gun legislation. The NRA is one of the largest lobbies in the country because so many fellow countrymen want to protect their gun rights. Sorry that youre on the fringe minority
 
2012-07-24 12:00:44 PM

Primum: Yep.

The blood of shooting victims is on the NRA's hands as well as anyone who's ever donated money to them or voted for their candidates.



Child please.
 
2012-07-24 12:01:22 PM

gilgigamesh: Frank N Stein: gilgigamesh: Frank N Stein: Actually it seems that his baby killing assault rifle was ineffective, plagued with jamming issues. Which is why he switched to his other arms (shotgun, pistol)

But don't let that stop yor crusade, champ

Oh, you were there? Because that is the only way I can think of that you would know what actually happened and what is bullshiat hearsay.

Google search "James Holmes gun jam"

Google "hearsay".


Whatever, don't listen to what the cops say. Not my problem if you want to remain ignorant.
 
2012-07-24 12:01:22 PM

Frank N Stein: The NRA gets it money from members so they can protect the members from restrictive gun legislation. The NRA is one of the largest lobbies in the country because so many fellow countrymen want to protect their gun rights. Sorry that youre on the fringe minority



If that is true, then why is the NRA supporting the candidate with the worst record on gun rights in the presidential race?
 
2012-07-24 12:01:53 PM

Linux_Yes: America is a victim of unbridled Capitalism. you've seen the benefits of measured capitalism (with government setting and enforcing some ground rules that everyone plays by) over the years, wait until you see the dark side of unbridled capitalism. its gonn'a be a gas, man!


If don't know what you're smoking but I would hardly call American unbridled capitalism. Capitalism also works on the labor side as well as jobs get paid what they're worth on the open market, not the rates that the government or a union sets. Because the government (and unions) set the wages, and American companies have to compete on a global scale, jobs are shipped to a labor market where they can compete.
 
2012-07-24 12:02:00 PM

beta_plus: If only we had strict gun laws like Norway.


me too -- even with that massacre, look at the numbers:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_dea t h_rate

basically, you suggested Norway has more (or at least serious) gun violence even though they have strict gun laws.

That is incorrect. Norway's homicide rate by guns are more than order of magnitude less than the united states (and we are scaling for populace so we can all be assured the numbers are even steven).

It's time to think about and have an honest discussion of what NEEDS we have for guns in the country and what WANTS we can do without.

It's time.

It's time talk about it.
 
2012-07-24 12:03:10 PM
Funny how all those people called for people with guns to come rescue them.
 
2012-07-24 12:03:20 PM
The most effective way to bring down gun deaths is to end the drug war. No need to enact restrictive gun control. Ending the drug war is the key.
 
2012-07-24 12:03:42 PM

o5iiawah: This witch hunt against the NRA speaks to a large issue of the progressive mindset and that is to exonerate the individual from bearing any responsibility for the tragedy.

Columbine was marilyn Manson's fault - not Kliebobld and Harris
the Ft hood shooting was a "workplace stress incident" not a mass murder
Susan Smith drowning her kids was a medical issue
The aurora shooting is the NRA's fault
The Giffords shooting was the fault of the Tea party


Fast and Furious put sentient weapons of death into the hands of pacifist drug cartel members.
 
2012-07-24 12:04:02 PM

Frank N Stein: The most effective way to bring down gun deaths is to end the drug war. No need to enact restrictive gun control. Ending the drug war is the key.


Let's do both.
 
2012-07-24 12:04:09 PM

keithgabryelski: beta_plus: If only we had strict gun laws like Norway.

me too -- even with that massacre, look at the numbers:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_dea t h_rate

basically, you suggested Norway has more (or at least serious) gun violence even though they have strict gun laws.

That is incorrect. Norway's homicide rate by guns are more than order of magnitude less than the united states (and we are scaling for populace so we can all be assured the numbers are even steven).

It's time to think about and have an honest discussion of what NEEDS we have for guns in the country and what WANTS we can do without.

It's time.

It's time talk about it.


I'd much rather talk about the lack of affordable, accessible mental health care and the war of drugs, which are probably the causes of most of the gun crime.
 
2012-07-24 12:04:43 PM

fracto73: Frank N Stein: The NRA gets it money from members so they can protect the members from restrictive gun legislation. The NRA is one of the largest lobbies in the country because so many fellow countrymen want to protect their gun rights. Sorry that youre on the fringe minority


If that is true, then why is the NRA supporting the candidate with the worst record on gun rights in the presidential race?


Because the opposition of a Black Democrat speaks to their narrative of oppressed majorities?
 
2012-07-24 12:04:48 PM

fracto73: Frank N Stein: The NRA gets it money from members so they can protect the members from restrictive gun legislation. The NRA is one of the largest lobbies in the country because so many fellow countrymen want to protect their gun rights. Sorry that youre on the fringe minority


If that is true, then why is the NRA supporting the candidate with the worst record on gun rights in the presidential race?


Because they're flat out wrong on this issue. I will admit that.

I'm not a member of the NRA, btw.
 
2012-07-24 12:05:10 PM

Frank N Stein: gilgigamesh: Frank N Stein: gilgigamesh: Frank N Stein: Actually it seems that his baby killing assault rifle was ineffective, plagued with jamming issues. Which is why he switched to his other arms (shotgun, pistol)

But don't let that stop yor crusade, champ

Oh, you were there? Because that is the only way I can think of that you would know what actually happened and what is bullshiat hearsay.

Google search "James Holmes gun jam"

Google "hearsay".

Whatever, don't listen to what the cops say. Not my problem if you want to remain ignorant.


Ignorance has been advacning the anti gun agenda for years....why would they stop now?
 
2012-07-24 12:05:29 PM

Frank N Stein: The NRA gets it money from members so they can protect the members from restrictive gun legislation. The NRA is one of the largest lobbies in the country because so many fellow countrymen want to protect their gun rights. Sorry that youre on the fringe minority


The NRA is the largest lobbying industry in the country because it cons its members into thinking 0bummer is coming to take their guns away, which he is obviously planning when you look at his tactic of not doing anything to take guns away.

Look, you guys won. I don't know why you feel the need to continually shiat your pants in fear over nonexistent gun-grabbing. But if writing checks to the NRA is what it takes to keep your knickers dry, by all means be my guest.
 
2012-07-24 12:05:43 PM

slayer199: Linux_Yes: America is a victim of unbridled Capitalism. you've seen the benefits of measured capitalism (with government setting and enforcing some ground rules that everyone plays by) over the years, wait until you see the dark side of unbridled capitalism. its gonn'a be a gas, man!

If don't know what you're smoking but I would hardly call American unbridled capitalism. Capitalism also works on the labor side as well as jobs get paid what they're worth on the open market, not the rates that the government or a union sets. Because the government (and unions) set the wages, and American companies have to compete on a global scale, jobs are shipped to a labor market where they can compete.




yea, and i suppose my Legislators do what is in my best interests, right? they would never lower themselves to be bought and paid for by big business/rich lobbyist in D.C. , right?

and i suppose that is Democracy too.

and i guess the ever widening wealth gap between the rich and the middle class is just all illusion, right?

smoke one for me too, pal. one day, you'll look back and say THESE were the good ole' days..........
 
2012-07-24 12:06:11 PM

Dusk-You-n-Me: Frank N Stein: The most effective way to bring down gun deaths is to end the drug war. No need to enact restrictive gun control. Ending the drug war is the key.

Let's do both.


Let's just end the drug war. Why end one unconstitutional prohibition program only to replace it with another?
 
2012-07-24 12:06:23 PM

s1ugg0: rufus-t-firefly: bujin: Can anyone point to a single time in which some gun-toting civilian actually stopped a mass shooting?

bujin: Can anyone point to a single time in which some gun-toting civilian actually stopped a mass shooting?

bujin: Can anyone point to a single time in which some gun-toting civilian actually stopped a mass shooting?

That's easy. There was example just a few days ago.

There is even video


Robbery is not the same as a mass shooting.

Oh and then there is this but I stopped at two because I'm only going to spend 30 seconds googling for you because your lazy.

She was at the church as a security guard. She wasn't just some random citizen packing heat.

the_foo:

Yes

Yes

Yes


Each one of those just points to the site's main page. And all I see is robbery, robbery, robbery, self-defense, robbery...

The question wasn't about self-defense - it was about mass shootings.

Though it's hard to tell if a shooting would have been a "mass" shooting when it was stopped.

It's easy to tell - did the guy have a large supply of ammunition and/or multiple firearms? Then yeah, it was probably going to be a mass shooting. Hell, just a pistol and a pocket full of clips would suffice. Some guy robbing a store with a pistol (and no additional ammo) isn't planning a shooting spree.

Still waiting to see an example of a random CC person stopping a mass shooting. That was a driving force behind concealed carry in Texas - after the Luby's shootings in the 1990s. And we still haven't seen it happen.
 
2012-07-24 12:06:24 PM

RedT: Can someone please explain to me why my name goes into a data base when I buy cold medicine, but not when I buy a semi-automatic gun?


Your name goes into a database when you buy any gun. Don't you remember filling out the 4473 form?
 
2012-07-24 12:06:39 PM

Giltric: /graduate of the Alabama projects in Paterson NJ.


hey, from 22nd and E23rd


bujin: Can anyone point to a single time in which some gun-toting civilian actually stopped a mass shooting?


Saw this earlier today. Link

I guess all of those COULD have been mass shootings...but how do you tell?
/by the number of bullets stockpiled, apparently
 
2012-07-24 12:07:20 PM

Frank N Stein: The NRA gets it money from members so they can protect the members from restrictive gun legislation. The NRA is one of the largest lobbies in the country because so many fellow countrymen want to protect their gun rights. Sorry that youre on the fringe minority


The NRA gets its money by scaring members into believing half-truths and selective quotes. F*ck the NRA.
 
2012-07-24 12:07:31 PM

Frank N Stein: The most effective way to bring down gun deaths is to end the drug war. No need to enact restrictive gun control. Ending the drug war is the key.


or restrict all guns.

It seems that bans on automatic weapons have helped the reduction in crime with automatic weapons.

that bans on assault weapons (for that decade) brought down crimes with assault weapons.

Maybe... just maybe... we should ban all firearms.
 
2012-07-24 12:07:56 PM

Frank N Stein: The most effective way to bring down gun deaths is to end the drug war. No need to enact restrictive gun control. Ending the drug war is the key.



I get a kick out of the people who are all "ZOMG we need to ban assault weapons and handguns", and then they turn around and mention how they support drug legalization because prohibition doesn't work.
 
2012-07-24 12:08:05 PM

Frank N Stein: Whatever, don't listen to what the cops say. Not my problem if you want to remain ignorant.


So I guess you didn't bother to google "hearsay".

Psst: the cop wasn't there when it happened. Someone told him. That's what hearsay is.
 
2012-07-24 12:08:15 PM

Frank N Stein: Let's just end the drug war. Why end one unconstitutional prohibition program only to replace it with another?


Restrictions on gun purchases are not unconstitutional.
 
2012-07-24 12:08:50 PM

Frank N Stein: fracto73: Frank N Stein: The NRA gets it money from members so they can protect the members from restrictive gun legislation. The NRA is one of the largest lobbies in the country because so many fellow countrymen want to protect their gun rights. Sorry that youre on the fringe minority


If that is true, then why is the NRA supporting the candidate with the worst record on gun rights in the presidential race?

Because they're flat out wrong on this issue. I will admit that.

I'm not a member of the NRA, btw.



To me this is evidence that they are no longer in the business of protecting gun rights. It seems more logical, from their actions, that they want to promote fear in order to maintain the current high profit margins of gun/ammo.
 
2012-07-24 12:09:24 PM

gilgigamesh: it cons its members into thinking 0bummer is coming to take their guns away, which he is obviously planning when you look at his tactic of not doing anything to take guns away.


There's really no argument against that. He's claimed he wants to re-instate the assault weapons ban but he hasn't done anything. Wait and see what he'll do after this shooting, it will be nothing. He's figured out like the rest of the Dems with brains, that gun control is a political loser.
 
2012-07-24 12:10:26 PM

keithgabryelski: Frank N Stein: The most effective way to bring down gun deaths is to end the drug war. No need to enact restrictive gun control. Ending the drug war is the key.

or restrict all guns.

It seems that bans on automatic weapons have helped the reduction in crime with automatic weapons.

that bans on assault weapons (for that decade) brought down crimes with assault weapons.

Maybe... just maybe... we should ban all firearms.


There's not a ban on all automatic weapons, just a ban on imported or domestically produced automatic weapons since 68 and 86. The only crime committed with a legally owned automatic weapon was committed by a cop in ohio. However other crimes have been committed with illegally owned automatic weapons.

All crime dropped precipitously for 3 years before the banned was even signed into law. The AWB had no effect on crime rates.
 
2012-07-24 12:10:41 PM

gilgigamesh: Tyrano Soros: As a liberal, I can safely say that if assualt rifles were banned, James Holmes would just have stocked up on shotguns and pistols, with the same deadly outcome.

Rank speculation. You can't possibly know what would have happened in your little "what if" scenario.

All we can say is what did happen: under current laws, this guy was allowed to purchase enough firepower and armor to enable him murder and maim dozens of people within 2 minutes, and probably a lot more had he chosen to do so.

Speculating about what he could have done with bombs or shotguns or rocks or whatever is less than useless. In fact it is a cheap attempt at deflection from what actually happened.




And how would that have changed if only allowed to buy shotguns and pistols?
 
TKM
2012-07-24 12:10:56 PM

Giltric: Frank N Stein: limeyfellow: Frank N Stein: I'm actually thinking about buying an AR-15 pattern rifle. Any advise on what I should buy? My budget is $1000.

Save up a little more money, like a few hundred and then you start to get into the market where AR-15s fall. I have Rock River Arms version. Lovely rifle. Luckily the price has really dropped from the "OMG Obama is going to take away all the guns the second he is elected, so lets buy at double the price" scare of 2008.

Yeah I've heard some good things about RRA. I'll have to look into it.

I'm trying to figure out if building one would be cost effective. So far I doubt it, so I'll probably just buy the complete baby killing assault rifle with the shoulder thing that goes up and hi cap assault clips ;)

I think all of the lower recievers available are made by maybe 2 or 3 companies who then sell to RRA or Stag or whoever.

I don;t think the lower matters as much as the upper does as far as accuracy goes.

Maybe get a cheap lower and a real good upper.


This and the part where an assembled firearm gets tagged with 11% FET. Buy the lower and upper separately and spend the extra Franklin on ammo.
 
2012-07-24 12:11:24 PM

paygun: gilgigamesh: it cons its members into thinking 0bummer is coming to take their guns away, which he is obviously planning when you look at his tactic of not doing anything to take guns away.

There's really no argument against that. He's claimed he wants to re-instate the assault weapons ban but he hasn't done anything. Wait and see what he'll do after this shooting, it will be nothing. He's figured out like the rest of the Dems with brains, that gun control is a political loser.


I would like hot women to pay me to give me blow jobs. Since that isn't going to happen, there isn't much point in wasting breath about it.
 
2012-07-24 12:12:15 PM

gilgigamesh: Frank N Stein: Whatever, don't listen to what the cops say. Not my problem if you want to remain ignorant.

So I guess you didn't bother to google "hearsay".

Psst: the cop wasn't there when it happened. Someone told him. That's what hearsay is.


You know you can check a gun for a jam after the fact right? You don't have to be there when it happened.

/have you ever cleared a jam or even shot a gun?
 
2012-07-24 12:12:27 PM

rufus-t-firefly: s1ugg0: rufus-t-firefly: bujin: Can anyone point to a single time in which some gun-toting civilian actually stopped a mass shooting?

bujin: Can anyone point to a single time in which some gun-toting civilian actually stopped a mass shooting?

bujin: Can anyone point to a single time in which some gun-toting civilian actually stopped a mass shooting?

That's easy. There was example just a few days ago.

There is even video

Robbery is not the same as a mass shooting.

Oh and then there is this but I stopped at two because I'm only going to spend 30 seconds googling for you because your lazy.

She was at the church as a security guard. She wasn't just some random citizen packing heat.

the_foo:

Yes

Yes

Yes

Each one of those just points to the site's main page. And all I see is robbery, robbery, robbery, self-defense, robbery...

The question wasn't about self-defense - it was about mass shootings.

Though it's hard to tell if a shooting would have been a "mass" shooting when it was stopped.

It's easy to tell - did the guy have a large supply of ammunition and/or multiple firearms? Then yeah, it was probably going to be a mass shooting. Hell, just a pistol and a pocket full of clips would suffice. Some guy robbing a store with a pistol (and no additional ammo) isn't planning a shooting spree.

Still waiting to see an example of a random CC person stopping a mass shooting. That was a driving force behind concealed carry in Texas - after the Luby's shootings in the 1990s. And we still haven't seen it happen.


On Wednesday, October 16, 1991, Hupp and her parents were having lunch at the Luby's Cafeteria in Killeen. She had left her gun in her car to comply with Texas state law at the time, which prohibited carrying a concealed weapon.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suzanna_Hupp

seems like the law gets in the way of people defending themselves.
 
2012-07-24 12:13:06 PM

Frank N Stein: The NRA gets it money from members so they can protect the members from restrictive gun legislation. The NRA is one of the largest lobbies in the country because so many fellow countrymen want to protect their gun rights. Sorry that youre on the fringe minority


any numbers I can see show the numbers to be 1 in 4 people in the united states own a gun

1 in 4 is a minority -- your "fringe minority" comment is not correct.
 
2012-07-24 12:13:15 PM

keithgabryelski: Frank N Stein: The most effective way to bring down gun deaths is to end the drug war. No need to enact restrictive gun control. Ending the drug war is the key.

or restrict all guns.

It seems that bans on automatic weapons have helped the reduction in crime with automatic weapons.

that bans on assault weapons (for that decade) brought down crimes with assault weapons.

Maybe... just maybe... we should ban all firearms.


There was a total of 2 murders with legally owned machine guns. And one was by a cop killing another cop.

Yet after the registry was closed in 86, we saw things such as the 1997 North Hollywood shoot out.

You don't know what you're talking about, and you're possibly autistic.
 
2012-07-24 12:13:44 PM
I think high-capacity magazines should be banned, as they are in California. It wouldn't stop your everyday street crime homicides, but it would significantly impact the ability to wage these kinds of mass-casualty shootings like Aurora, Tucson and V Tech. The ability of one total amateur to walk into a room and shoot 70 farking people is not what they had in mind when they wrote the 2nd Amendment. Nor did they picture the entire farking population walking around with guns on their persons like living in a war zone. Aurora, Tucson, V Tech, Columbine -- they were all carried out by total dweebs -- not gun nuts with inside connections who could possibly get this gear even if it was illegal. These guys were amateur crazy f*cks, but it was incredibly easy for them to get a hold of these weapons and incredibly easy for them to kill a ton of people with zero formal gun training. To the rest of the world, this is total madness, but our culture has conditioned us to accept it.

And to people who say the Aurora punk knew how to make bombs and could just do that if he couldn't get guns -- well then why didn't he? Weird that he chose guns first over bombs. Weird that the Tucson shooter picked his higher-capacity clip first when he started shooting in that shopping center parking lot.

As a gun enthusiast myself who keeps several for home protection, the gun nut retards who fantasize about overtaking the government with their hillbilly arsenals need to STFU before they ruin it for the rest of us.
 
2012-07-24 12:13:52 PM
Let's put it all on the table, Mr. Moyers, and add censorship into the discussion as well. This nutcase was mimicking the latest incarnation of Heath Ledger's "Joker," a gun-shootin' and bomb-planting sociopath, was he not? If Hollywood were censored from making such violent movies then the content for wackos like this guy wouldn't be there to mimic, would it? Couple that with a ban on guns and this nation would be the least violent in the history of the civilized world.
 
2012-07-24 12:14:30 PM

Fart_Machine: Turn the volume down from 11 guys. The guy was a nutbag. This is about as stupid as blaming the victims because they didn't have a shoot out in a dark crowded theater filled with tear gas.


Funny no one is talking about the chemicals he got from his school. Certain acids and combustibles make the "hypergolic" compounds that were found. Forget the guns, if he had brought those to the theater, there would be a lot more deaths due to fire and toxic fumes. Oh and lots not forget his drug use either. No one wants to talk about his mindset and how he got there.
 
2012-07-24 12:15:02 PM

The_Sponge: Frank N Stein: The most effective way to bring down gun deaths is to end the drug war. No need to enact restrictive gun control. Ending the drug war is the key.

I get a kick out of the people who are all "ZOMG we need to ban assault weapons and handguns", and then they turn around and mention how they support drug legalization because prohibition doesn't work.


How about people who just want common sense regulations? This guy bought his guns legally, but the fact that he bought a lot of guns and ammo in a short period of time didn't raise any red flags at all.

If people are fine with an occasional massacre as long as they can buy a gun without too much hassle, they should just say so.

How many murders are considered a fair price to pay so that I can go buy a shotgun, a couple of rifles and a few hundred rounds on my lunch break?
 
2012-07-24 12:15:15 PM

o5iiawah: This witch hunt against the NRA speaks to a large issue of the progressive mindset and that is to exonerate the individual from bearing any responsibility for the tragedy.

Columbine was marilyn Manson's fault - not Kliebobld and Harris
the Ft hood shooting was a "workplace stress incident" not a mass murder
Susan Smith drowning her kids was a medical issue
The aurora shooting is the NRA's fault
The Giffords shooting was the fault of the Tea party



Fast and Furious deaths were the fault of Holder. Oh, wait...
 
2012-07-24 12:15:16 PM

keithgabryelski: Maybe... just maybe... we should ban all firearms.


Prohibition never solved the drug problem so why would it solve anything with firearms?
 
2012-07-24 12:15:19 PM
Dear Vehement Gun Rights Advocates:

Have this all figured out by post 500, ok?

Sincerely,

People Who Laugh At You For Being the Party of Responsibility

//ducks
//don't bother, not gonna respond
 
2012-07-24 12:15:42 PM

Tyrano Soros: And how would that have changed if only allowed to buy shotguns and pistols?


I never said he should. In fact I don't believe he should.

I don't claim to have any answers. I am not even necessarily in favor of gun control. I am only here to point out that any time something like this happens, like clockwork the NRA and its minions march forth to every corner of the media to shut down any and all debate on the topic, claiming "now is not the time to have this discussion".
 
2012-07-24 12:16:07 PM

gilgigamesh: I would like hot women to pay me to give me blow jobs.


This statement supports my belief that if you talk to someone long enough, you'll always find common ground.
 
2012-07-24 12:16:12 PM

Fart_Machine: Prohibition never solved the drug problem so why would it solve anything with firearms?



Check the homicide rates of countries with stricter gun laws than the US and then get back to us with your brilliant findings.
 
2012-07-24 12:17:38 PM

Tyrano Soros: gilgigamesh: Tyrano Soros: As a liberal, I can safely say that if assualt rifles were banned, James Holmes would just have stocked up on shotguns and pistols, with the same deadly outcome.

Rank speculation. You can't possibly know what would have happened in your little "what if" scenario.

All we can say is what did happen: under current laws, this guy was allowed to purchase enough firepower and armor to enable him murder and maim dozens of people within 2 minutes, and probably a lot more had he chosen to do so.

Speculating about what he could have done with bombs or shotguns or rocks or whatever is less than useless. In fact it is a cheap attempt at deflection from what actually happened.



And how would that have changed if only allowed to buy shotguns and pistols?


Considering the timing of his purchases, if all this was reported to a database, a red flag would have went off and could have been investigated.

I believe a good way to control guns is to control ammo. Good enough for the military.
 
2012-07-24 12:17:41 PM

shower_in_my_socks: Fart_Machine: Prohibition never solved the drug problem so why would it solve anything with firearms?


Check the homicide rates of countries with stricter gun laws than the US and then get back to us with your brilliant findings.


And how are you going to address the 290 million odd guns already in the US?
 
2012-07-24 12:18:21 PM

Chimperror2: Certain acids and combustibles make the "hypergolic" compounds that were found. Forget the guns, if he had brought those to the theater, there would be a lot more deaths due to fire and toxic fumes.



Why didn't he use the bombs, then? If they were so much better than guns, why didn't he use them? I farking hate this argument. "Oh, they'll just find another way to kill people" -- if there's an equal or better way to easily kill tons of people, why do they keep picking guns first? It's almost like people who design military weapon killing machines have perfected it.
 
2012-07-24 12:18:29 PM

shower_in_my_socks: Fart_Machine: Prohibition never solved the drug problem so why would it solve anything with firearms?


Check the homicide rates of countries with stricter gun laws than the US and then get back to us with your brilliant findings.


Did those other countries have 200 million firearms owned legally by their citizens?
 
2012-07-24 12:19:52 PM

shower_in_my_socks: Chimperror2: Certain acids and combustibles make the "hypergolic" compounds that were found. Forget the guns, if he had brought those to the theater, there would be a lot more deaths due to fire and toxic fumes.


Why didn't he use the bombs, then? If they were so much better than guns, why didn't he use them? I farking hate this argument. "Oh, they'll just find another way to kill people" -- if there's an equal or better way to easily kill tons of people, why do they keep picking guns first? It's almost like people who design military weapon killing machines have perfected it.


Holme's AR-15 didn't have selective fire, therefore it isn't a military weapon.
 
2012-07-24 12:20:21 PM

shower_in_my_socks: Fart_Machine: Prohibition never solved the drug problem so why would it solve anything with firearms?


Check the homicide rates of countries with stricter gun laws than the US and then get back to us with your brilliant findings.


Yep, but make sure to ignore all other socieconomic differences as well.

/something someting about correlation-causation
 
2012-07-24 12:20:29 PM

redmid17: gilgigamesh: Frank N Stein: Whatever, don't listen to what the cops say. Not my problem if you want to remain ignorant.

So I guess you didn't bother to google "hearsay".

Psst: the cop wasn't there when it happened. Someone told him. That's what hearsay is.

You know you can check a gun for a jam after the fact right? You don't have to be there when it happened.

/have you ever cleared a jam or even shot a gun?


Of course I have. We don't know when, or if, it jammed.

We don't know much of anything, because this happened a few days ago and pretty much anything up to and including the actual body count is typically unreliable this soon after a tragedy. Stating anything as gospel fact at this point just makes you look like a bobbleheaded retard.
 
2012-07-24 12:20:44 PM

dlp211: Tyrano Soros: gilgigamesh: Tyrano Soros: As a liberal, I can safely say that if assualt rifles were banned, James Holmes would just have stocked up on shotguns and pistols, with the same deadly outcome.

Rank speculation. You can't possibly know what would have happened in your little "what if" scenario.

All we can say is what did happen: under current laws, this guy was allowed to purchase enough firepower and armor to enable him murder and maim dozens of people within 2 minutes, and probably a lot more had he chosen to do so.

Speculating about what he could have done with bombs or shotguns or rocks or whatever is less than useless. In fact it is a cheap attempt at deflection from what actually happened.



And how would that have changed if only allowed to buy shotguns and pistols?

Considering the timing of his purchases, if all this was reported to a database, a red flag would have went off and could have been investigated.

I believe a good way to control guns is to control ammo. Good enough for the military.


So legislate to cover that base, and the criminal adapts and appears normal to anyone who comes investigating. Once the investigation is over you only succeeded in turning a killer into a patient killer.

The killer already waited more then 60 days from his first purchase.....whats waiting another couple weeks?
 
2012-07-24 12:21:28 PM

redmid17: shower_in_my_socks: Fart_Machine: Prohibition never solved the drug problem so why would it solve anything with firearms?


Check the homicide rates of countries with stricter gun laws than the US and then get back to us with your brilliant findings.

And how are you going to address the 290 million odd guns already in the US?


I am not an advocate for this, but the same way the UK and Japan did.
 
2012-07-24 12:21:35 PM

dlp211: Tyrano Soros: gilgigamesh: Tyrano Soros: As a liberal, I can safely say that if assualt rifles were banned, James Holmes would just have stocked up on shotguns and pistols, with the same deadly outcome.

Rank speculation. You can't possibly know what would have happened in your little "what if" scenario.

All we can say is what did happen: under current laws, this guy was allowed to purchase enough firepower and armor to enable him murder and maim dozens of people within 2 minutes, and probably a lot more had he chosen to do so.

Speculating about what he could have done with bombs or shotguns or rocks or whatever is less than useless. In fact it is a cheap attempt at deflection from what actually happened.



And how would that have changed if only allowed to buy shotguns and pistols?

Considering the timing of his purchases, if all this was reported to a database, a red flag would have went off and could have been investigated.

I believe a good way to control guns is to control ammo. Good enough for the military.



There is no mention of ammo in the Constitution.
 
2012-07-24 12:21:37 PM

shower_in_my_socks: Fart_Machine: Prohibition never solved the drug problem so why would it solve anything with firearms?


Check the homicide rates of countries with stricter gun laws than the US and then get back to us with your brilliant findings.


Well instead of being a dick you could always look at the fact that with our current levels of firearms banning them isn't going to have much of an effect. Also perhaps there could be other factors than just stricter gun laws?
 
2012-07-24 12:22:18 PM

dlp211: I believe a good way to control guns is to control ammo.


Agrees (NSFW language)
 
2012-07-24 12:22:31 PM
GUNS SOLVE EVERYTHING!
 
2012-07-24 12:22:49 PM

Giltric: Still waiting to see an example of a random CC person stopping a mass shooting. That was a driving force behind concealed carry in Texas - after the Luby's shootings in the 1990s. And we still haven't seen it happen.

On Wednesday, October 16, 1991, Hupp and her parents were having lunch at the Luby's Cafeteria in Killeen. She had left her gun in her car to comply with Texas state law at the time, which prohibited carrying a concealed weapon.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suzanna_Hupp

seems like the law gets in the way of people defending themselves.


Right...but now that the law has been changed, why haven't we seen these killing sprees stopped by civilians with carry permits?

Besides, her having a loaded pistol in the car was illegal at that time anyway - unless she was "traveling."
 
2012-07-24 12:23:09 PM

redmid17: And how are you going to address the 290 million odd guns already in the US?



Firstly, I don't support banning all guns. I just don't think it should be possible for an amateur to buy a military rifle over the internet, load it with a 100 round magazine, and kill 70 people in the dark. As for the guns that are already out there, the number of illegal firearms will go down over time, as they wear out, get confiscated, are turned in, etc. If 100 round drums were not legal, for example, this dweeb probably couldn't have gotten one. He's not some underworld crime lord with blackmarket gun connections. Him, the guy in Tucson, V Tech -- they were just dorks who went crazy and had EASY access to massively powerful human killing machines.
 
2012-07-24 12:23:26 PM

dlp211: I am not an advocate for this, but the same way the UK and Japan did.


I feel the same way about welfare. We should let poor people die in a ditch. But I'm not advocating it.
 
2012-07-24 12:24:35 PM

Linux_Yes: yea, and i suppose my Legislators do what is in my best interests, right? they would never lower themselves to be bought and paid for by big business/rich lobbyist in D.C. , right?

and i suppose that is Democracy too.

and i guess the ever widening wealth gap between the rich and the middle class is just all illusion, right?

smoke one for me too, pal. one day, you'll look back and say THESE were the good ole' days..........


I never said that. I said America is NOT a case of unbridled capitalism. Washington is hopelessly corrupted by money (both parties)...they change the rules so they can benefit legally. Worse, the parties ensure that only those 2 parties get a seat at the table.
 
2012-07-24 12:24:47 PM
sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net
 
2012-07-24 12:25:01 PM
Just out of curiosity: How many mad gunmen have actually been NRA members?
Because this is like shaking down AOPA after 9/11 and hoping that its going to stop Bin Ladin.

/This is all fruitless, pointless, and most likely driven by some wealthy idiots malicious agenda.
 
2012-07-24 12:25:03 PM

Giltric: dlp211: Tyrano Soros: gilgigamesh: Tyrano Soros: As a liberal, I can safely say that if assualt rifles were banned, James Holmes would just have stocked up on shotguns and pistols, with the same deadly outcome.

Rank speculation. You can't possibly know what would have happened in your little "what if" scenario.

All we can say is what did happen: under current laws, this guy was allowed to purchase enough firepower and armor to enable him murder and maim dozens of people within 2 minutes, and probably a lot more had he chosen to do so.

Speculating about what he could have done with bombs or shotguns or rocks or whatever is less than useless. In fact it is a cheap attempt at deflection from what actually happened.



And how would that have changed if only allowed to buy shotguns and pistols?

Considering the timing of his purchases, if all this was reported to a database, a red flag would have went off and could have been investigated.

I believe a good way to control guns is to control ammo. Good enough for the military.

So legislate to cover that base, and the criminal adapts and appears normal to anyone who comes investigating. Once the investigation is over you only succeeded in turning a killer into a patient killer.

The killer already waited more then 60 days from his first purchase.....whats waiting another couple weeks?


It isn't perfect, but it is something. Also regulate the sale of ammo and destroy high-cap magazines.

There is no perfect solution, I, and nearly everyone who is rational will admit this. But there is a better solution.
 
2012-07-24 12:25:38 PM

shower_in_my_socks: I just don't think it should be possible for an amateur to buy a military rifle over the internet


Where does this stuff come from? You can't buy guns over the internet without the sale being processed by a dealer and then all the usual background check, ID, and all that happens.

I have to admit, if I believed half the things that the prohibitionists believed, I'd post nutty things on the internet too.
 
2012-07-24 12:25:50 PM

Frank N Stein: Holme's AR-15 didn't have selective fire, therefore it isn't a military weapon.



You know what I meant. Oh, that's right. The AR platform was designed for deer hunting. My bad.
 
2012-07-24 12:26:05 PM

redmid17: shower_in_my_socks: Fart_Machine: Prohibition never solved the drug problem so why would it solve anything with firearms?


Check the homicide rates of countries with stricter gun laws than the US and then get back to us with your brilliant findings.

And how are you going to address the 290 million odd guns already in the US?


That's where the UN comes in.

DUH.
 
2012-07-24 12:26:30 PM

dlp211: redmid17: shower_in_my_socks: Fart_Machine: Prohibition never solved the drug problem so why would it solve anything with firearms?


Check the homicide rates of countries with stricter gun laws than the US and then get back to us with your brilliant findings.

And how are you going to address the 290 million odd guns already in the US?

I am not an advocate for this, but the same way the UK and Japan did.


Japan's shogunate (I think, government either way) controlled all firearms manufacturing from the 1700s on, so that one is out.

UK did a lot of things but passed laws after their massacres outlawing semi-auto handguns and rifles. If the US did that, you'd be looking at over a 100 million illegal guns in civilian possession on the low end. Semi auto pistols account for something like 70% of gun sales nowadays. Not only would the government either be buying (horrible for the budget) the guns back or seizing them from civilians, the sheer scope of it is impractical.
 
2012-07-24 12:27:08 PM

shower_in_my_socks: Firstly, I don't support banning all guns.


The guy I was responding to was which is why I found his comment totally unrealistic.
 
2012-07-24 12:27:09 PM

rufus-t-firefly: How about people who just want common sense regulations? This guy bought his guns legally, but the fact that he bought a lot of guns and ammo in a short period of time didn't raise any red flags at all.

If people are fine with an occasional massacre as long as they can buy a gun without too much hassle, they should just say so.

How many murders are considered a fair price to pay so that I can go buy a shotgun, a couple of rifles and a few hundred rounds on my lunch break?



Just because your side uses the term "common sense" doesn't automatically make it so. So what kind of regulations do you want to see?
 
2012-07-24 12:28:03 PM

paygun: dlp211: I am not an advocate for this, but the same way the UK and Japan did.

I feel the same way about welfare. We should let poor people die in a ditch. But I'm not advocating it.


I think you missed my point. I am not for banning weapons in the US, hence I am not an advocate, but someone asked how to which I responded the solution is the way the UK and Japan did it.

I shoot, fairly regularly.
 
2012-07-24 12:28:24 PM
Let me be overly specific to prove my gun penis is bigger than yours, in an attempt to disprove what you are saying, even though I understand the point you are making.

GUNS NEVER DID NOTHING WRONG!
 
2012-07-24 12:28:40 PM

way south: This is all fruitless, pointless, and most likely driven by some wealthy idiots malicious agenda.


Considering that NRA board members are from companies that make high-capacity magazines, that sounds about right.

Link

No wonder they're against regulations on clip size.
 
2012-07-24 12:28:49 PM

Fart_Machine: The guy I was responding to was which is why I found his comment totally unrealistic.



You were responding to me. I think high-capacity magazines should be illegal, as they are in California. That's all I'm advocating here.
 
2012-07-24 12:29:03 PM

shower_in_my_socks: I just don't think it should be possible for an amateur to buy a military rifle over the internet,



Speaking as somebody who has purchased a firearm "over the internet", allow me to point out that it still had to be shipped to a local licensed dealer, and I was still required to go through a background check. It's not like it was dropped off at my doorstep.
 
2012-07-24 12:29:05 PM

gilgigamesh: redmid17: gilgigamesh: Frank N Stein: Whatever, don't listen to what the cops say. Not my problem if you want to remain ignorant.

So I guess you didn't bother to google "hearsay".

Psst: the cop wasn't there when it happened. Someone told him. That's what hearsay is.

You know you can check a gun for a jam after the fact right? You don't have to be there when it happened.

/have you ever cleared a jam or even shot a gun?

Of course I have. We don't know when, or if, it jammed.

We don't know much of anything, because this happened a few days ago and pretty much anything up to and including the actual body count is typically unreliable this soon after a tragedy. Stating anything as gospel fact at this point just makes you look like a bobbleheaded retard.


How about this: Evidence suggests that his primary rifle failed, thus causing him to switch weapons. Not proven, but there is evidence showing that.

So continuing to parrot the idea that the evil baby killing assault rifle needs to be banned because of this is disingenuous, since it seems the weapon in question didn't do as much damage as the other guns.
 
2012-07-24 12:29:31 PM

shower_in_my_socks: You know what I meant. Oh, that's right. The AR platform was designed for deer hunting. My bad.


The most common hunting rifle is a military design. Where does this design stuff come from?
 
2012-07-24 12:29:40 PM

shower_in_my_socks: redmid17: And how are you going to address the 290 million odd guns already in the US?


Firstly, I don't support banning all guns. I just don't think it should be possible for an amateur to buy a military rifle over the internet, load it with a 100 round magazine, and kill 70 people in the dark. As for the guns that are already out there, the number of illegal firearms will go down over time, as they wear out, get confiscated, are turned in, etc. If 100 round drums were not legal, for example, this dweeb probably couldn't have gotten one. He's not some underworld crime lord with blackmarket gun connections. Him, the guy in Tucson, V Tech -- they were just dorks who went crazy and had EASY access to massively powerful human killing machines.


Depends on what round the beta mag jammed on(they are prone to jam)....it could have jammed on the first or second round...could have jammed on the 99th round too, we just don;t know. If it jammed on the first couple rounds he would have been as successful as he was if he had 10 round mags for the rifle.

Do you know if he was using buck or bird shot with the shotgun? you get a good spread and you could hit alot of people with one shot using birdshot.

Don;t know if we will ever get a final report that would say how many were injured by .223 and how many were injured by the other weapons he used. But all of your arguemnets might be based on a weapon that wasn;t even a factor in killing or injuring people....which is typical for people who want to regulate firearms even more.
 
2012-07-24 12:30:36 PM
nukes don't kill people.
 
2012-07-24 12:31:08 PM

rufus-t-firefly: way south: This is all fruitless, pointless, and most likely driven by some wealthy idiots malicious agenda.

Considering that NRA board members are from companies that make high-capacity magazines, that sounds about right.

Link

No wonder they're against regulations on clip size.


Lordy. Midway doesn't make anything. They're a reseller.
 
2012-07-24 12:31:10 PM

rufus-t-firefly: Giltric: Still waiting to see an example of a random CC person stopping a mass shooting. That was a driving force behind concealed carry in Texas - after the Luby's shootings in the 1990s. And we still haven't seen it happen.

On Wednesday, October 16, 1991, Hupp and her parents were having lunch at the Luby's Cafeteria in Killeen. She had left her gun in her car to comply with Texas state law at the time, which prohibited carrying a concealed weapon.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suzanna_Hupp

seems like the law gets in the way of people defending themselves.

Right...but now that the law has been changed, why haven't we seen these killing sprees stopped by civilians with carry permits?

Besides, her having a loaded pistol in the car was illegal at that time anyway - unless she was "traveling."


How many chances have people with a CCW had to prove you wrong during a mass shooting? 2 or 3?
 
2012-07-24 12:31:19 PM

shower_in_my_socks: I think high-capacity magazines should be illegal, as they are in California.



And that has done wonders for the firearms death rate, right? Because California is slightly ahead of Washington when it comes to that statistic, and we don't have a ban on high capacity magazines.

Seriously, the fact that I would be committing a crime by bringing my Beretta into California along with its 15 round factory mags is insane.
 
2012-07-24 12:31:21 PM

shower_in_my_socks: You were responding to me.


Fart_Machine: keithgabryelski: Maybe... just maybe... we should ban all firearms.

Prohibition never solved the drug problem so why would it solve anything with firearms?


Wat?
 
2012-07-24 12:31:58 PM
You can have my health care, education and 8-hour work day. BUT DON"T TAKE MY farkING GUN.
 
2012-07-24 12:31:58 PM

The_Sponge: rufus-t-firefly: How about people who just want common sense regulations? This guy bought his guns legally, but the fact that he bought a lot of guns and ammo in a short period of time didn't raise any red flags at all.

If people are fine with an occasional massacre as long as they can buy a gun without too much hassle, they should just say so.

How many murders are considered a fair price to pay so that I can go buy a shotgun, a couple of rifles and a few hundred rounds on my lunch break?

Just because your side uses the term "common sense" doesn't automatically make it so. So what kind of regulations do you want to see?


"My side?" So there's a side that wants people planning a mass murder spree to be able to buy as many guns and as much ammo as they want in a short period of time without being noticed?

And that brings me to a "common sense" regulation - report sales of firearms and ammunition in such a way that someone would get flagged if he purchases a certain quantity of either in a certain period of time. Exceptions would be made for dealers, of course.
 
2012-07-24 12:32:43 PM

The_Sponge: And that has done wonders for the firearms death rate, right? Because California is slightly ahead of Washington when it comes to that statistic, and we don't have a ban on high capacity magazines.


But still well below Arizona and Nevada.
 
2012-07-24 12:33:21 PM

The_Sponge: rufus-t-firefly: How about people who just want common sense regulations? This guy bought his guns legally, but the fact that he bought a lot of guns and ammo in a short period of time didn't raise any red flags at all.

If people are fine with an occasional massacre as long as they can buy a gun without too much hassle, they should just say so.

How many murders are considered a fair price to pay so that I can go buy a shotgun, a couple of rifles and a few hundred rounds on my lunch break?


Just because your side uses the term "common sense" doesn't automatically make it so. So what kind of regulations do you want to see?


Regulate the shiat out of ammo. Want it for self-defense, fine, here's your 7 rounds. Need it for hunting, ok, here's your 7 rounds. Want more for hunting, ok, pay this holding fee and return the spent casings to get it back.

Want to shoot a ton of ammo, no problem, come on down to the range and shoot your hearts content out, make sure your return all your casings though otherwise you will be subject to a brass and ammo check.
 
2012-07-24 12:33:34 PM

rufus-t-firefly: The_Sponge: rufus-t-firefly: How about people who just want common sense regulations? This guy bought his guns legally, but the fact that he bought a lot of guns and ammo in a short period of time didn't raise any red flags at all.

If people are fine with an occasional massacre as long as they can buy a gun without too much hassle, they should just say so.

How many murders are considered a fair price to pay so that I can go buy a shotgun, a couple of rifles and a few hundred rounds on my lunch break?

Just because your side uses the term "common sense" doesn't automatically make it so. So what kind of regulations do you want to see?

"My side?" So there's a side that wants people planning a mass murder spree to be able to buy as many guns and as much ammo as they want in a short period of time without being noticed?

And that brings me to a "common sense" regulation - report sales of firearms and ammunition in such a way that someone would get flagged if he purchases a certain quantity of either in a certain period of time. Exceptions would be made for dealers, of course.


Handguns purchases are already monitored in the way you mentioned.
 
2012-07-24 12:33:50 PM

Giltric: Don;t know if we will ever get a final report that would say how many were injured by .223 and how many were injured by the other weapons he used. But all of your arguemnets might be based on a weapon that wasn;t even a factor in killing or injuring people....



He shot 70 people. He started with the shotgun. That's maybe 5 rounds? Then he went to the AR. He eventually went to a semi-auto handgun. I think most of the shooting was probably done with the AR, just doing the math, but I'm sure we'll find out soon enough. The Tucson shooter also started his rampage using the highest-capacity clip he had, and was tackled when it ran out and he went to load a lower-capcity clip. In that instance, a lower limit would have definitely saved lives.
 
2012-07-24 12:33:54 PM
The NRA is nothing more than a well funded political lobbying group whose base supporters consist of head nodding, redneck dimwits, who believe in fairy tale conspiracies about dark skinned boogeymen going door to door confiscating guns of innocent patriots so that the unarmed populace will be easier to subvert into slavery and enable the UN's stormtroopers to bring about one-world government socialism by killing us all.
 
2012-07-24 12:33:55 PM

Frank N Stein: So continuing to parrot the idea that the evil baby killing assault rifle needs to be banned because of this is disingenuous, since it seems the weapon in question didn't do as much damage as the other guns.


You would be a lot more convincing if you argued the actual points your opponents make instead of the arguments your strawman makes.

Again, I never claimed, nor do I desire, that ar-15s be banned. Now if you want to talk about 100 round clips, that's another matter.
 
2012-07-24 12:34:03 PM

paygun: rufus-t-firefly: way south: This is all fruitless, pointless, and most likely driven by some wealthy idiots malicious agenda.

Considering that NRA board members are from companies that make high-capacity magazines, that sounds about right.

Link

No wonder they're against regulations on clip size.

Lordy. Midway doesn't make anything. They're a reseller.


Keep reading, sparky.

Further, some of these vendors of high-capacity magazines also boast executives who are board members of the NRA. Ronnie Barrett, the CEO of Tennessee-based Barrett Firearms Manufacturing, which makes a military-style rifle sold with high-capacity magazines, was elected to the NRA board in 2009. And Pete Brownell, who runs Iowa-based Brownells Inc., which also makes high-capacity magazines, joined the NRA board in 2010.

And vendors also have a profit motive.
 
2012-07-24 12:35:08 PM

shower_in_my_socks: The AR platform was designed for deer hunting.


?

The standard AR round (223/5.56) is undersized for deer. Varmit hunting? That is more the perfect fit for the AR Platform and the 223.
 
2012-07-24 12:35:09 PM

dlp211: Regulate the shiat out of ammo. Want it for self-defense, fine, here's your 7 rounds. Need it for hunting, ok, here's your 7 rounds. Want more for hunting, ok, pay this holding fee and return the spent casings to get it back.

Want to shoot a ton of ammo, no problem, come on down to the range and shoot your hearts content out, make sure your return all your casings though otherwise you will be subject to a brass and ammo check.



Are you high?

Fine...if you want to limit ammo, then let's put a limit on abortion rights....you only get to have two abortions in your life.
 
2012-07-24 12:35:20 PM

dlp211: The_Sponge: rufus-t-firefly: How about people who just want common sense regulations? This guy bought his guns legally, but the fact that he bought a lot of guns and ammo in a short period of time didn't raise any red flags at all.

If people are fine with an occasional massacre as long as they can buy a gun without too much hassle, they should just say so.

How many murders are considered a fair price to pay so that I can go buy a shotgun, a couple of rifles and a few hundred rounds on my lunch break?


Just because your side uses the term "common sense" doesn't automatically make it so. So what kind of regulations do you want to see?

Regulate the shiat out of ammo. Want it for self-defense, fine, here's your 7 rounds. Need it for hunting, ok, here's your 7 rounds. Want more for hunting, ok, pay this holding fee and return the spent casings to get it back.

Want to shoot a ton of ammo, no problem, come on down to the range and shoot your hearts content out, make sure your return all your casings though otherwise you will be subject to a brass and ammo check.


You going to regulate the sale of gunpowder and casings as well?
 
2012-07-24 12:36:23 PM
Also, I've never understood why liberals are for fun control. They are always the first against the wall. 20s Russia, 30s Germany etc.
 
2012-07-24 12:37:31 PM

The_Sponge: shower_in_my_socks: Chimperror2: Actually, I don't think those people would have cared who shot him.


Right, Mr. CCR with his p-shooter is going to take down a guy who has him massively outgunned, is wearing body armor, operating in the dark with hundreds of screaming people running around. The fantasies some of you nuts have are hilarious.


As much as I support concealed carry, I fully realize that this situation was beyond tough for the average person who has a permit, and I put myself in that category.

IMHO, the only person who would have been prepared for that scenario is somebody who has extensive law enforcement or military training.


As someone with extensive military training especially in CQB situations, even I am probably not taking a shot in that scenario. I could, if everything in the environment was perfect for me to take the shot, but that would be completely out of my hands.
 
2012-07-24 12:37:35 PM

Frank N Stein: Also, I've never understood why liberals are for fun control. They are always the first against the wall. 20s Russia, 30s Germany etc.


Wait. So, that means Hitler and Stalin WEREN'T progressives? Remember, you have a narrative that you're sticking to, here.
 
2012-07-24 12:38:02 PM

The_Sponge: IMHO, the only person who would have been prepared for that scenario is somebody who has extensive law enforcement or military training.


It would have been a nightmare scenario for anyone with military or police training. Trying to take out an armored gunman in a dark crowded theater with scrambling civilians and tear gas grenades going off? We're talking Kobayashi Maru level here.
 
2012-07-24 12:38:31 PM

rufus-t-firefly: No wonder they're against regulations on clip size.


Really?
 
2012-07-24 12:39:01 PM

The_Sponge: And that has done wonders for the firearms death rate, right? Because California is slightly ahead of Washington when it comes to that statistic, and we don't have a ban on high capacity magazines.



I stated earlier that it wouldn't do anything to stop everyday gun crime, but it would definitely curb mass-casualty rampages like Aurora, Tucson, Virginia Tech, etc. Could a gun enthusiast with connections still get a hold of illegal equipment? Sure. But that doesn't describe the shooters in any of those mass-murders.
 
2012-07-24 12:39:09 PM

Frank N Stein: Also, I've never understood why liberals are for fun control. They are always the first against the wall. 20s Russia, 30s Germany etc.


I would be surprised if you could point out five liberals in this thread who advocated gun control.

But please, keep arguing with the voices in your head, and by all means make sure those checks to the NRA keep flowing.

LOOK OUT! Obama's under your bed, reaching for your gun. Write that check faster!
 
2012-07-24 12:39:22 PM

redmid17: dlp211: The_Sponge: rufus-t-firefly: How about people who just want common sense regulations? This guy bought his guns legally, but the fact that he bought a lot of guns and ammo in a short period of time didn't raise any red flags at all.

If people are fine with an occasional massacre as long as they can buy a gun without too much hassle, they should just say so.

How many murders are considered a fair price to pay so that I can go buy a shotgun, a couple of rifles and a few hundred rounds on my lunch break?


Just because your side uses the term "common sense" doesn't automatically make it so. So what kind of regulations do you want to see?

Regulate the shiat out of ammo. Want it for self-defense, fine, here's your 7 rounds. Need it for hunting, ok, here's your 7 rounds. Want more for hunting, ok, pay this holding fee and return the spent casings to get it back.

Want to shoot a ton of ammo, no problem, come on down to the range and shoot your hearts content out, make sure your return all your casings though otherwise you will be subject to a brass and ammo check.

You going to regulate the sale of gunpowder and casings as well?


Again, not a perfect solution but better then what we have. Why must the solution be perfect.
 
2012-07-24 12:39:30 PM

The_Sponge: dlp211: Regulate the shiat out of ammo. Want it for self-defense, fine, here's your 7 rounds. Need it for hunting, ok, here's your 7 rounds. Want more for hunting, ok, pay this holding fee and return the spent casings to get it back.

Want to shoot a ton of ammo, no problem, come on down to the range and shoot your hearts content out, make sure your return all your casings though otherwise you will be subject to a brass and ammo check.


Are you high?

Fine...if you want to limit ammo, then let's put a limit on abortion rights....you only get to have two abortions in your life.


That doesn't make sense. If you have someone who was raped 3 times and impregnated 3 times, don't you think the child that results from the 3rd rape might grow up and become a murdering rapist too?

BULLET SPRAY! A-OK!
 
2012-07-24 12:40:33 PM

The_Sponge: dlp211: Regulate the shiat out of ammo. Want it for self-defense, fine, here's your 7 rounds. Need it for hunting, ok, here's your 7 rounds. Want more for hunting, ok, pay this holding fee and return the spent casings to get it back.

Want to shoot a ton of ammo, no problem, come on down to the range and shoot your hearts content out, make sure your return all your casings though otherwise you will be subject to a brass and ammo check.


Are you high?

Fine...if you want to limit ammo, then let's put a limit on abortion rights....you only get to have two abortions in your life.


I'm limiting you in how much you can shoot. I'm am limiting you to where you can shoot. I have no problem with abortions in clinics, I have problems with abortions in back alley clinics, so you can take that strawman and beat it.
 
2012-07-24 12:41:15 PM

Fart_Machine: It would have been a nightmare scenario for anyone with military or police training. Trying to take out an armored gunman in a dark crowded theater with scrambling civilians and tear gas grenades going off? We're talking Kobayashi Maru level here.



The only thing I'll give the CCR argument here is the possibility that the shooter would have fled if he realized someone was shooting back. Possibly he would have just run to the theater next door and kept going, but we'll never know.

I support CCR programs and it's the one thing I wish I could get in my state, but they've made it virtually impossible.
 
2012-07-24 12:41:47 PM

dlp211: Again, not a perfect solution but better then what we have. Why must the solution be perfect.



Because your solutions infringe on my rights.
 
2012-07-24 12:41:51 PM

rufus-t-firefly: Keep reading, sparky.


You're right, firearms manufacturers support a lobby for gun rights. The conspiracy has been blown wide open.
 
2012-07-24 12:42:32 PM

dlp211: I'm limiting you in how much you can shoot. I'm am limiting you to where you can shoot.



You can take your limit, and shove it up your ass.
 
2012-07-24 12:42:33 PM

The_Sponge: Fine...if you want to limit ammo, then let's put a limit on abortion rights....you only get to have two abortions in your life.


Or we could compromise and limit clips to only holding two abortions at a time.
 
2012-07-24 12:42:35 PM

EyeballKid: Frank N Stein: Also, I've never understood why liberals are for fun control. They are always the first against the wall. 20s Russia, 30s Germany etc.

Wait. So, that means Hitler and Stalin WEREN'T progressives? Remember, you have a narrative that you're sticking to, here.


Wait, what are you talking about? What are you implying? What narrative? How many paint chips did you eat as a child?
 
2012-07-24 12:42:36 PM

The_Sponge: dlp211: Again, not a perfect solution but better then what we have. Why must the solution be perfect.


Because your solutions infringe on my rights.


SO what you're saying is that first we need to repeal the second amendment
 
2012-07-24 12:42:50 PM

dlp211: I'm NOT limiting you in how much you can shoot. I'm am limiting you to where you can shoot. I have no problem with abortions in clinics, I have problems with abortions in back alley clinics, so you can take that strawman and beat it.


FTFM
 
2012-07-24 12:43:25 PM

The_Sponge: dlp211: Again, not a perfect solution but better then what we have. Why must the solution be perfect.


Because your solutions infringe on my rights.


What right is that?
 
2012-07-24 12:43:46 PM

gilgigamesh: I would be surprised if you could point out five liberals in this thread who advocated gun control.


I think that's where these discussions always get derailed. You're a good example, you don't support gun control.
 
2012-07-24 12:44:18 PM

shower_in_my_socks: Fart_Machine: It would have been a nightmare scenario for anyone with military or police training. Trying to take out an armored gunman in a dark crowded theater with scrambling civilians and tear gas grenades going off? We're talking Kobayashi Maru level here.


The only thing I'll give the CCR argument here is the possibility that the shooter would have fled if he realized someone was shooting back. Possibly he would have just run to the theater next door and kept going, but we'll never know.

I support CCR programs and it's the one thing I wish I could get in my state, but they've made it virtually impossible.


Meh, I'd have to guess that if he was wearing body armor he at least came prepared for some return fire. But yeah, I have no problem with CCR either.
 
2012-07-24 12:44:30 PM

Fart_Machine: Or we could compromise and limit clips to only holding two abortions at a time.


what about gay abortions and the implications of sharia law
 
2012-07-24 12:45:12 PM

shower_in_my_socks: Giltric: Don;t know if we will ever get a final report that would say how many were injured by .223 and how many were injured by the other weapons he used. But all of your arguemnets might be based on a weapon that wasn;t even a factor in killing or injuring people....


He shot 70 people. He started with the shotgun. That's maybe 5 rounds? Then he went to the AR. He eventually went to a semi-auto handgun. I think most of the shooting was probably done with the AR, just doing the math, but I'm sure we'll find out soon enough. The Tucson shooter also started his rampage using the highest-capacity clip he had, and was tackled when it ran out and he went to load a lower-capcity clip. In that instance, a lower limit would have definitely saved lives.


5 rounds might not seem like alot but the way a shotgun and its rounds are designed to perform with the choke patterns and spread from the projectiles everyone with one piece of birdshot in their arm is counted as injured.

It is very likely that most of the injuries and possibly even deaths came from the shotgun.

Where did you get the info on the order of battle....I'd like to look at it.
 
2012-07-24 12:45:18 PM

HeadLever: rufus-t-firefly: No wonder they're against regulations on clip size.

Really?


FFS.

In normal usage, the terms are farking interchangeable. You might as well correct my grammar or punctuation.

But limiting both magazines and clips is fine by me.
 
2012-07-24 12:45:40 PM

carmody: You know, I'm so old I remember the NRA before Wayne LaPierre turned it into a hard-right political action group. Back in my day, it was a simple sportsmen's association.


Everything that can be purchased and turned into a money fueled political device will be. 7/11 will be a hard right PAC any day now.
 
2012-07-24 12:45:53 PM

keithgabryelski: Frank N Stein: The most effective way to bring down gun deaths is to end the drug war. No need to enact restrictive gun control. Ending the drug war is the key.

or restrict all guns.

It seems that bans on automatic weapons have helped the reduction in crime with automatic weapons.

that bans on assault weapons (for that decade) brought down crimes with assault weapons.

Maybe... just maybe... we should ban all firearms.


You're making a very specific and guided message here. Unfortunately, the two weapon types you chose to use as examples were very poor. A reduction in crime is nigh impossible to prove regarding automatic and "assault" weapons bans because of how infrequently they've been used in the commission of a crime ever.
I used quotations around assault weapons because no one can seem to agree on a definition whenever they bring up assault weapons for a gun control/restriction/legislation debate.
 
2012-07-24 12:46:53 PM

rufus-t-firefly: way south: This is all fruitless, pointless, and most likely driven by some wealthy idiots malicious agenda.

Considering that NRA board members are from companies that make high-capacity magazines, that sounds about right.

Link

No wonder they're against regulations on clip size.


It surprises you that a gun distributor is part of the gun lobby?
It should surprise you more than the magazine capacity on most firearms exceeded ten rounds from before the World wars.

/Technology got better, bullets got smaller.
/The only thing still trapped in Pandora's box is hope.
 
2012-07-24 12:47:21 PM

Frank N Stein: Holme's AR-15 didn't have selective fire, therefore it isn't a military weapon.


Oh jeeze.

The Navy SEALS use a Rugar Mk II .22-caliber pistol, therefore it's a military weapon.
But when I own it, it's not a military weapon, right?

Any weapon used by the military is a "military weapon."
Any weapon not used by the military is NOT a "military weapon."
The physical details of a weapon are not what makes it a "military weapon."
 
2012-07-24 12:47:43 PM

Frank N Stein: Also, I've never understood why liberals are for fun control. They are always the first against the wall. 20s Russia, 30s Germany etc.


Wait a minute!

I was told that the Nazis and Communists were liberals!
 
2012-07-24 12:48:25 PM

rufus-t-firefly: HeadLever: rufus-t-firefly: No wonder they're against regulations on clip size.

Really?

FFS.

In normal usage, the terms are farking interchangeable. You might as well correct my grammar or punctuation.

But limiting both magazines and clips is fine by me.


Even in the military, which is obnoxious with terminology, magazines and clips are interchangeable when talking to others. You may be called a 'gangsta' if you are talking to someone that significantly outranks you, but everyone knows what you mean and that is all that matters.
 
2012-07-24 12:49:13 PM

dlp211: Again, not a perfect solution but better then what we have.


With all the realoading tech out there, you would just end up driving a major segment of the shooting industry underground. Laws of Unintended Consequences says that it will likely be worse (and I would argue much worse) than what we have now.

Brass, primers, powder and bullets are not that hard to build for those that know a few things.
 
2012-07-24 12:49:55 PM
Are there any pictures of the kit this guy was wearing? People keep saying body armor...but just like how most journalists and cops can't tell the difference bewteen a 22 milimeter handgun and a glock I'm wondering if the guy had riot gear type pads and not actual balistic protection.


Dont the police like to show off the guns and money and drugs they find....where are the pics of this guys kit........
 
2012-07-24 12:50:24 PM

Giltric: can't tell the difference bewteen a 22 milimeter handgun


lol
 
2012-07-24 12:51:06 PM

way south: Technology got better, bullets got smaller


I read that as "smarter".

www.jannigogo.com

Still no cure for acid injecting spider bots.
 
2012-07-24 12:51:11 PM

HotIgneous Intruder: Frank N Stein: Holme's AR-15 didn't have selective fire, therefore it isn't a military weapon.

Oh jeeze.

The Navy SEALS use a Rugar Mk II .22-caliber pistol, therefore it's a military weapon.
But when I own it, it's not a military weapon, right?

Any weapon used by the military is a "military weapon."
Any weapon not used by the military is NOT a "military weapon."
The physical details of a weapon are not what makes it a "military weapon."


Its like US v Miller all over again.....
 
2012-07-24 12:51:47 PM

Giltric: Are there any pictures of the kit this guy was wearing? People keep saying body armor...but just like how most journalists and cops can't tell the difference bewteen a 22 milimeter handgun and a glock I'm wondering if the guy had riot gear type pads and not actual balistic protection.


Dont the police like to show off the guns and money and drugs they find....where are the pics of this guys kit........


Here
 
2012-07-24 12:52:10 PM
if all guns were used to perform abortions, we'd have a much happier planet.
 
2012-07-24 12:52:22 PM

Giltric: HotIgneous Intruder: Frank N Stein: Holme's AR-15 didn't have selective fire, therefore it isn't a military weapon.

Oh jeeze.

The Navy SEALS use a Rugar Mk II .22-caliber pistol, therefore it's a military weapon.
But when I own it, it's not a military weapon, right?

Any weapon used by the military is a "military weapon."
Any weapon not used by the military is NOT a "military weapon."
The physical details of a weapon are not what makes it a "military weapon."

Its like US v Miller all over again.....


A shiatty ruling as well
 
2012-07-24 12:53:54 PM

pacified: if all guns were used to perform abortions, we'd have a much happier planet.


full auto abortions would require drum magazines
 
2012-07-24 12:55:17 PM

Frank N Stein: Also, I've never understood why liberals are for fun control. They are always the first against the wall. 20s Russia, 30s Germany etc.


I'm a giant liberal. I think gay marriage is a-ok, I think a little socialism mixed in with a little capitalism is okay, I think Obama is a fairly good president. I believe this country's greatest strengths are its immigrants, both legal and illegal (my relatives were illegal immigrants once!). I am not a jingoist, and I'm extremely areligious.

I am also a staunch supporter of the right to bear arms. I am a responsible firearm owner. Gun safety is tantamount, and a vital lesson to anyone lucky enough to be taught. I don't belong to the NRA because their message is horrible.

Where is your stereotype now?
 
2012-07-24 12:55:59 PM
Came for the M.O.D. Squad reference. Leaving satisfied.
 
2012-07-24 12:56:47 PM
I am certainly not against gun rights, but the NRA's continued insistence that every psychotic should own and carry a gun does indicate that they are completely in favor of every mass killing done within the US.

Have they ever done anything to keep guns out of the hands of anyone? Ever?

Has there ever been a single incident where the NRA has lifted a finger to make sure a single whackjob does not have the latest and greatest firepower?
 
2012-07-24 12:56:49 PM

paygun: gilgigamesh: I would be surprised if you could point out five liberals in this thread who advocated gun control.

I think that's where these discussions always get derailed. You're a good example, you don't support gun control.


Not anymore.

I am the libbiest lib who ever libbed, but the gun grab that occurred after Katrina opened my eyes.

During a state of civil insurrection and anarchy, police, and perhaps more offensively, Blackwater goons, went door to door disarming law abiding citizens at gunpoint, leaving them completely defenseless against the rampaging crime that had engulfed the city. The police were even less able than usual to protect us, and no one was safe. The city had fallen into pure chaos. Yet for some inexplicable reason, someone thought it would be a good idea to eliminate our ability to defend ourselves as well.

Let's just say that opened my eyes.

I think gun violence is a problem in this country, and I think the NRA is a cancer because it actively and very effectively stifles any real debate about the issue for a profit motive.

Something needs to be done. But while I used to casually support gun control, I see I was wrong. I now absolutely oppose "assault weapon" bans or other forms of gun control as misguided and sinister.
 
2012-07-24 12:56:51 PM

redmid17: Giltric: Are there any pictures of the kit this guy was wearing? People keep saying body armor...but just like how most journalists and cops can't tell the difference bewteen a 22 milimeter handgun and a glock I'm wondering if the guy had riot gear type pads and not actual balistic protection.


Dont the police like to show off the guns and money and drugs they find....where are the pics of this guys kit........

Here


Yep did it myself before my post which is why I am asking.

For all we know it could be a chest rig.....

Link

Or dirtbike rider chest proector with police logo.....Link
 
2012-07-24 12:56:53 PM

paygun: rufus-t-firefly: Keep reading, sparky.

You're right, firearms manufacturers support a lobby for gun rights. The conspiracy has been blown wide open.


Goalposts: moved.

Don't forget that the NRA is happy to sell out to protect those manufacturers.

Remember how mandatory trigger locks were a horrible infringement on gun rights?

Link

HARRISBURG, 6 December 1999, Senate sources confirmed that NRA agreed to the trigger lock and many other anti-gun features of SB-167 if they get passage of a bill to save gun manufacturers the cost of defending against frivolous lawsuits from cities.

The NRA will fark over its members so long as the gun industry profits from the legislation.

TIM RUSSERT: Do you support -- on your Internet it says trigger lock legislation is an invasion of privacy. It says you're against it.
WAYNE LAPIERRE: No, we have always supported safety locks. We're supporting the bill on Capitol Hill right now that provides mandatory...
RUSSERT: In states throughout the country?
LAPIERRE: Mandatory safety locks with the sale of every gun, instant checks on gun shows done with a 24-hour delay, and violent juveniles prohibited from owning guns.


Link
 
2012-07-24 12:58:55 PM
Enabler And Bringer Of Death
 
2012-07-24 01:00:28 PM

shower_in_my_socks: Chimperror2: Certain acids and combustibles make the "hypergolic" compounds that were found. Forget the guns, if he had brought those to the theater, there would be a lot more deaths due to fire and toxic fumes.


Why didn't he use the bombs, then? If they were so much better than guns, why didn't he use them? I farking hate this argument. "Oh, they'll just find another way to kill people" -- if there's an equal or better way to easily kill tons of people, why do they keep picking guns first? It's almost like people who design military weapon killing machines have perfected it.


It is a very well known human urge to be there at the climax of any undertaking. A person who lays bombs to do acts of murder will not have the same ability to see how their plans come to fruition. That's my guess as to why the firearms are chosen, not their efficiency.
 
2012-07-24 01:01:30 PM

gilgigamesh: I think gun violence is a problem in this country, and I think the NRA is a cancer because it actively and very effectively stifles any real debate about the issue for a profit motive.


I see your point, but asking the NRA to support more gun control is pissing in the wind. The NRA isn't a crime lobby.
 
2012-07-24 01:02:28 PM

j_twelve: Where is your stereotype now?


When you qualify a statement by saying 'many', you kind of destroy the stereotype argument. Now if he would have said 'all liberals' . . .

it is the basic 'while there are many liberals not for gun contrrol, nearly all gun control advocates are liberal' argument.
 
2012-07-24 01:03:21 PM
Why is the thread getting all wonky....is it being purged or parsed w/e ?
 
2012-07-24 01:03:36 PM

rufus-t-firefly: Don't forget that the NRA is happy to sell out to protect those manufacturers.


The NRA is a political lobby group that plays politics. I don't think the NRA is perfect by any means but they have to play the game.
 
2012-07-24 01:04:16 PM

rosebud_the_sled: I am certainly not against gun rights, but the NRA's continued insistence that every psychotic should own and carry a gun does indicate that they are completely in favor of every mass killing done within the US.

Have they ever done anything to keep guns out of the hands of anyone? Ever?

Has there ever been a single incident where the NRA has lifted a finger to make sure a single whackjob does not have the latest and greatest firepower?


You know the NRA has helped write every single substantive piece of gun legislation since 34 right?

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=NICS_Improvement_Act_of_20 0 7

"In early June 2007, the National Rifle Association (NRA) endorsed the bill following negotiations with Reps. McCarthy and Dingell. In exchange for the NRA's support of the bills provisions to improve the updating of information into the FBI's National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS), the changes to the bill included protecting the ability of veterans designated as having psychological conditions, such as post-traumatic stress disorder, and individuals successfully treated for mental illness to purchase guns. Following the endorsement, the bill was expected to reach the House floor sometime in mid-June.[8]"
 
2012-07-24 01:12:22 PM
I'd just like to point out that 13 of the 15 mass shootings to my recollection were committed by people with histories of mental illnesses, that had purchased their guns legally.

Obviously, the only viable solution is to make guns easier to get, so we can stop these guys when the time arises.
 
2012-07-24 01:15:51 PM

Jack Mackbell: I'd just like to point out that 13 of the 15 mass shootings to my recollection were committed by people with histories of mental illnesses, that had purchased their guns legally.

Obviously, the only viable solution is to make guns easier to get, so we can stop these guys when the time arises.


Your recollection is false. However I don't see anyone, NRA included, saying that people with mental illness should be allowed to own a gun UNLESS that person has been cleared by appropriate medical personnel. Hell they endorsed a modification to the NICS system to make it easier to identify people with mental illness.
 
2012-07-24 01:28:15 PM
simple solutions by Isitoveryet;

you want to purchase a gun?
you have to take a bullet first, you pick the general area of your body and the caliber depends on the gun you want to purchase.

BLAM! cry stitch stitch stitch.

you now qualify to purchase a firearm.
 
2012-07-24 01:30:18 PM

Isitoveryet: simple solutions by Isitoveryet;

you want to purchase a gun?
you have to take a bullet first, you pick the general area of your body and the caliber depends on the gun you want to purchase.

BLAM! cry stitch stitch stitch.

you now qualify to purchase a firearm.


Remember kids, it's the people who defend their Constitutional rights who are the extremists here, not people like Isitoveryet who are just simply calling for commonsense gun control laws.
 
2012-07-24 01:38:30 PM
img833.imageshack.us
 
2012-07-24 01:38:53 PM
This is about as smart as blaming AAA for a car crash.
 
2012-07-24 01:43:00 PM

redmid17: keithgabryelski: beta_plus: If only we had strict gun laws like Norway.

me too -- even with that massacre, look at the numbers:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_dea t h_rate

basically, you suggested Norway has more (or at least serious) gun violence even though they have strict gun laws.

That is incorrect. Norway's homicide rate by guns are more than order of magnitude less than the united states (and we are scaling for populace so we can all be assured the numbers are even steven).

It's time to think about and have an honest discussion of what NEEDS we have for guns in the country and what WANTS we can do without.

It's time.

It's time talk about it.

I'd much rather talk about the lack of affordable, accessible mental health care and the war of drugs, which are probably the causes of most of the gun crime.


Affordable medical care is now constitutional according to the Supreme Court. Just like guns!
 
2012-07-24 01:43:16 PM

redmid17: Jack Mackbell: I'd just like to point out that 13 of the 15 mass shootings to my recollection were committed by people with histories of mental illnesses, that had purchased their guns legally.

Obviously, the only viable solution is to make guns easier to get, so we can stop these guys when the time arises.

Your recollection is false. However I don't see anyone, NRA included, saying that people with mental illness should be allowed to own a gun UNLESS that person has been cleared by appropriate medical personnel. Hell they endorsed a modification to the NICS system to make it easier to identify people with mental illness.


The question then is, "Why were these people with a history of (potentially violent) mental illness not flagged in the NICS database as being ineligible to legally purchase these firearms?" In the case of Jared Loughner it was because of police croneyism. Hid mother was associated with or worked for the local Sherriff and it was decided by the Sherriff's office not to report him or mandate counseling becuase they didn't want Loughner's mother to go through more trouble than Jared already put her through by being a wingbat.
Its purely speculation on my part, but I would not be surprised to find out other similar cases of someone known to be (violently) mentally ill not being reported to the NICS database were due to a Psych. refusing to release their patient's information because of a misguided sense of Dr./patient privilege or HIPAA (sp?) guidelines.
 
2012-07-24 01:43:59 PM

Daraymann: This is about as smart as blaming AAA for a car crash.


Or the ACLU for child porn.
 
2012-07-24 01:44:03 PM

Fark It: you now qualify to purchase a firearm.

Remember kids, it's the people who defend their Constitutional rights who are the extremists here, not people like Isitoveryet who are just simply calling for commonsense gun control laws.




wait a minute, you want to be able to shoot things without having first hand experience of the pain and hurt that you intend to put someone/thing else through?

I just thought that it would be a nice way to weed out the pansies from the real men.
I would also consider that firearm manufacturers no longer produce mass quantities, every piece is made to order with the buyers specifics in mind.
 
2012-07-24 01:48:11 PM

Loaded Six String: redmid17: Jack Mackbell: I'd just like to point out that 13 of the 15 mass shootings to my recollection were committed by people with histories of mental illnesses, that had purchased their guns legally.

Obviously, the only viable solution is to make guns easier to get, so we can stop these guys when the time arises.

Your recollection is false. However I don't see anyone, NRA included, saying that people with mental illness should be allowed to own a gun UNLESS that person has been cleared by appropriate medical personnel. Hell they endorsed a modification to the NICS system to make it easier to identify people with mental illness.

The question then is, "Why were these people with a history of (potentially violent) mental illness not flagged in the NICS database as being ineligible to legally purchase these firearms?" In the case of Jared Loughner it was because of police croneyism. Hid mother was associated with or worked for the local Sherriff and it was decided by the Sherriff's office not to report him or mandate counseling becuase they didn't want Loughner's mother to go through more trouble than Jared already put her through by being a wingbat.
Its purely speculation on my part, but I would not be surprised to find out other similar cases of someone known to be (violently) mentally ill not being reported to the NICS database were due to a Psych. refusing to release their patient's information because of a misguided sense of Dr./patient privilege or HIPAA (sp?) guidelines.


That goes back to address the healthcare field, not the NICS or guns.
 
2012-07-24 01:49:18 PM

Isitoveryet: Fark It: you now qualify to purchase a firearm.

Remember kids, it's the people who defend their Constitutional rights who are the extremists here, not people like Isitoveryet who are just simply calling for commonsense gun control laws.



wait a minute, you want to be able to shoot things without having first hand experience of the pain and hurt that you intend to put someone/thing else through?

I just thought that it would be a nice way to weed out the pansies from the real men.
I would also consider that firearm manufacturers no longer produce mass quantities, every piece is made to order with the buyers specifics in mind.


Reasonable.....
 
2012-07-24 01:51:39 PM

Fark It: Isitoveryet: Fark It: you now qualify to purchase a firearm.

Remember kids, it's the people who defend their Constitutional rights who are the extremists here, not people like Isitoveryet who are just simply calling for commonsense gun control laws.



wait a minute, you want to be able to shoot things without having first hand experience of the pain and hurt that you intend to put someone/thing else through?

I just thought that it would be a nice way to weed out the pansies from the real men.
I would also consider that firearm manufacturers no longer produce mass quantities, every piece is made to order with the buyers specifics in mind.

Reasonable.....


Not at all. Prices would go through the roof.
 
2012-07-24 01:56:07 PM
Far left website high lights statements by far left news commentator in a continued effort to exploit a tragedy for political purposes.

Jumping up and down howling about the "Tea Party" or "Palin" or "Beck" after the Giffords shooting and being completely wrong and never admitting that doesn't even phase you people as you start doing the same damn thing, now to the NRA. This is why I could never be a liberal, I'm too honest and I can't to make things up about groups/people I disagree with simply to make myself feel better.

There's a very, very, very good reason that conservatives understand liberals and can accurately state what their positions are while liberals flounder when they are forced to actually state the positions of conservatives instead of using rhetoric and insults.
 
2012-07-24 02:09:20 PM

Richard Flaccid:


You look adorable in a tutu.
 
2012-07-24 02:21:59 PM

redmid17: Loaded Six String: redmid17: Jack Mackbell: I'd just like to point out that 13 of the 15 mass shootings to my recollection were committed by people with histories of mental illnesses, that had purchased their guns legally.

Obviously, the only viable solution is to make guns easier to get, so we can stop these guys when the time arises.

Your recollection is false. However I don't see anyone, NRA included, saying that people with mental illness should be allowed to own a gun UNLESS that person has been cleared by appropriate medical personnel. Hell they endorsed a modification to the NICS system to make it easier to identify people with mental illness.

The question then is, "Why were these people with a history of (potentially violent) mental illness not flagged in the NICS database as being ineligible to legally purchase these firearms?" In the case of Jared Loughner it was because of police croneyism. Hid mother was associated with or worked for the local Sherriff and it was decided by the Sherriff's office not to report him or mandate counseling becuase they didn't want Loughner's mother to go through more trouble than Jared already put her through by being a wingbat.
Its purely speculation on my part, but I would not be surprised to find out other similar cases of someone known to be (violently) mentally ill not being reported to the NICS database were due to a Psych. refusing to release their patient's information because of a misguided sense of Dr./patient privilege or HIPAA (sp?) guidelines.

That goes back to address the healthcare field, not the NICS or guns.


Precisely. There are other more pressing and more efficient things which need to be looked at rather than further restrictions on the purchase or ownership of firearms. Poverty, the War on Drugs, public education, a positive change in any of these 3 things would result in a greater net positive effect on crime as well as the nation as a whole, and do so without infringing on the Second Amendment.
 
2012-07-24 02:22:48 PM

carmody: You know, I'm so old I remember the NRA before Wayne LaPierre turned it into a hard-right political action group. Back in my day, it was a simple sportsmen's association.


I'm really, really curious as to who they endorse in the presidential race. Romney actually has a track record of voting on gun laws the NRA doesn't like, while Obama has basically done nothing against current gun rights. If they endorse Obama or neither, that's fine, but if they endorse Romney I'll have no problem calling them out as a political organization disguised as a gun rights group.

...

On a slightly different track, driving into work this morning on Diane Rehm was a guy from the National Gun Owners Association. When asked about large capacity magazines, he basically said "If my home is being invaded by multiple people out to rape my wife and murder my daughter, I want the deadliest weapon possible to stop those invaders.

I thought to myself, "With that line of logic, why don't we just let him have a few grenades, an RPG, and an M-60?"
 
2012-07-24 02:27:22 PM

dlp211: The_Sponge: shower_in_my_socks: Chimperror2: Actually, I don't think those people would have cared who shot him.


Right, Mr. CCR with his p-shooter is going to take down a guy who has him massively outgunned, is wearing body armor, operating in the dark with hundreds of screaming people running around. The fantasies some of you nuts have are hilarious.


As much as I support concealed carry, I fully realize that this situation was beyond tough for the average person who has a permit, and I put myself in that category.

IMHO, the only person who would have been prepared for that scenario is somebody who has extensive law enforcement or military training.

As someone with extensive military training especially in CQB situations, even I am probably not taking a shot in that scenario. I could, if everything in the environment was perfect for me to take the shot, but that would be completely out of my hands.


No, but the shooter didn't either. He didn't seem to want to put up much of a fight. Even with his costume, I doubt he would have fought long with someone with the nerve to shoot back (or shoot at all). You are correct that tactically, the situation sucked and there may not have been a takedown shot available and a pistol vs. rifle is not advisable. Still, the little coward with the orange hair probably wouldn't have stayed to fight it out. Suppression fire might have been very effective. It's not like the shooter had any training on tactics or taking fire either.
 
2012-07-24 02:28:21 PM
zarberg:
"If my home is being invaded by multiple people out to rape my wife and murder my daughter, I want the deadliest weapon possible to stop those invaders.

I'd say the guy watches way too much T.V. probably a FOX News viewer.
 
2012-07-24 02:46:28 PM

zarberg: carmody: You know, I'm so old I remember the NRA before Wayne LaPierre turned it into a hard-right political action group. Back in my day, it was a simple sportsmen's association.

I'm really, really curious as to who they endorse in the presidential race. Romney actually has a track record of voting on gun laws the NRA doesn't like, while Obama has basically done nothing against current gun rights. If they endorse Obama or neither, that's fine, but if they endorse Romney I'll have no problem calling them out as a political organization disguised as a gun rights group.

...

On a slightly different track, driving into work this morning on Diane Rehm was a guy from the National Gun Owners Association. When asked about large capacity magazines, he basically said "If my home is being invaded by multiple people out to rape my wife and murder my daughter, I want the deadliest weapon possible to stop those invaders.

I thought to myself, "With that line of logic, why don't we just let him have a few grenades, an RPG, and an M-60?"


Well you can legally own all of those, but the collateral damage from any of them would mostly destroy the house. He might not have said it but I think it's fairly safe to assume the was also implying ease of acess, minimal collateral damage, and affordability.
 
2012-07-24 03:01:05 PM

randomjsa: This is why I could never be a liberal, I'm too honest and I can't to make things up about groups/people I disagree with simply to make myself feel better.


that's got to be a record. In a single sentence you already contradicted yourself. Usually people do it later in the paragraph.
 
2012-07-24 03:15:05 PM

slayer199: Linux



what you are describing is the result of unbridled capitalism. under a pure capitalist system, everything can be bought, even Legislators. as long as the price is right.

i like capitalism, but not captalistm unchecked and allowed to do as it pleases. there has to be rules to keep the playing field (free market) level and the government's (if it truly represents the people and not just rich people) job is to create and enforce these rules.

would you play a baseball game that determined your ability to make a living if there was no umpire present? it would turn into a brawl and you would never get paid.

such is unbridled capitalism or crony capitalism, take your pick.
 
2012-07-24 03:25:40 PM
Why do we not allow everybody to fly planes in this country?
 
2012-07-24 03:38:58 PM

hinten: Why do we not allow everybody to fly planes in this country?


The FAA is owned by the 1%
 
2012-07-24 03:46:10 PM

coeyagi: 6000 rounds of ammo. The Nazis (yes, Poe in under 10!) tried to conserve bullets, but not in America!


If you happen to collect firearms and have several different calibers, 6k is really not unheard of. Most people I know buy ammo in bulk boxes of 500 or 1k at a time. Bear in mind that for even a moderate shooter 150-200 rounds of ammo is good for about 1 trip to the range, and more trips to the range to become a skilled shooter is exactly the type of things you want people who have dangerous weapons to do. Anyways, 6k is nowhere near "start a war" territory. It's "avid collector who goes to the range once or twice a month" territory.

Of course, the guy in question here was totz cray cray.. but the 6k number shouldn't be considered "shocking."
 
2012-07-24 03:50:51 PM

the_geek: coeyagi: 6000 rounds of ammo. The Nazis (yes, Poe in under 10!) tried to conserve bullets, but not in America!

If you happen to collect firearms and have several different calibers, 6k is really not unheard of. Most people I know buy ammo in bulk boxes of 500 or 1k at a time. Bear in mind that for even a moderate shooter 150-200 rounds of ammo is good for about 1 trip to the range, and more trips to the range to become a skilled shooter is exactly the type of things you want people who have dangerous weapons to do. Anyways, 6k is nowhere near "start a war" territory. It's "avid collector who goes to the range once or twice a month" territory.

Of course, the guy in question here was totz cray cray.. but the 6k number shouldn't be considered "shocking."


I've got roughly 1200 bullets (22, 7.62 x 53mm, 12 gauge) sitting roughly 10 feet from me and I've haven't even shot my guns since February. Hell the only reason I have .22 ammo is because my dad has a 100+ year old Winchester I like to shoot when I go home.
 
2012-07-24 04:31:07 PM

js34603: The NRA is right, everyone should have access to guns. But bullets should cost a million dollars each.

/Rock 2012


The NIH paid for them. I think they can afford it.
 
2012-07-24 04:37:22 PM

hinten: Why do we not allow everybody to fly planes in this country?


We do.
 
2012-07-24 04:38:12 PM

Fart_Machine: Turn the volume down from 11 guys. The guy was a nutbag. This is about as stupid as blaming the victims because they didn't have a shoot out in a dark crowded theater filled with tear gas.


I blame the NIH for funding the carnage.
 
2012-07-24 04:47:31 PM

Chimperror2: hinten: Why do we not allow everybody to fly planes in this country?

We do.


We let everyone try but decided it might be prudent not to allow everyone.
 
2012-07-24 05:30:22 PM

EyeballKid: Whom can I blame for that abortion of a post? Home schooling?


In other words, you have no rational argument against it - as I expected

JRoo: Maybe it's the fault of our lack of a physical/mental healthcare system. "Oh, you haven't ACTUALLY done any of the horrible things you are obsessing about? Want to buy some guns so you can destroy your invisible enemies?


Were any of the above incidents preventable, or did they occur in the absence of any adequate mental health program? The Army has one and Major Hassan still decided to shoot up the joint. I am sure Harris and Kliebold had a guidance counselor at their school. We cant exactly baker act every man, woman and child in the country and run them through a gambit of tests.

Tyrano Soros: Fast and Furious deaths were the fault of Holder. Oh, wait...


The willful armament of known thugs, murderers and gangbangers does not equate to the existence of a free society where an individual can purchase a firearm within the scope of the law. Pathetic point is pathetic.
 
2012-07-24 06:12:32 PM

o5iiawah: In other words, you have no rational argument against it - as I expected


Wouldn't you need to make a rational argument in the first place?
 
2012-07-24 06:19:48 PM

hinten: Chimperror2: hinten: Why do we not allow everybody to fly planes in this country?

We do.

We let everyone try but decided it might be prudent not to allow everyone.


Bzzzt. Wrong. Everyone can fly. Everyone can shoot people in movie theaters. It's just illegal. Remember that kid from Seattle that kept stealing planes? We don't eliminate planes from society or cars or anything else because nutcases get a hold of them, even illegally.

This guy could have got a pilots license and crashed a plane into the movie theater if it makes you feel better. It doesn't change the fact that a) he somehow would have been prevented from flying and b) he was ineligible to purchase firearms. In fact nothing in his past seems to show any criminal behavior that would have prevented him from doing any number of things.
 
2012-07-24 06:50:55 PM

zappaisfrank: the_foo: zappaisfrank:

[gritartisan.files.wordpress.com image 400x225]

Tell me where the Tom Tomorrow cartoon advocated gun restrictions.

I'll wait...


Be fair. Sparky typically acts as Dan's mouthpiece, and Sparky is plainly suggesting that conservative victory in the overall gun control debate leads to more frequent civilian massacres.
 
2012-07-24 07:15:43 PM

Chimperror2: hinten: Chimperror2: hinten: Why do we not allow everybody to fly planes in this country?

We do.

We let everyone try but decided it might be prudent not to allow everyone.

Bzzzt. Wrong. Everyone can fly. Everyone can shoot people in movie theaters. It's just illegal. Remember that kid from Seattle that kept stealing planes? We don't eliminate planes from society or cars or anything else because nutcases get a hold of them, even illegally.



Planes have a purpose other than killing things, guns don't. That's such a stupid argument.
 
2012-07-24 07:29:17 PM
We don't allow people we de

Chimperror2: hinten: Chimperror2: hinten: Why do we not allow everybody to fly planes in this country?

We do.

We let everyone try but decided it might be prudent not to allow everyone.

Bzzzt. Wrong. Everyone can fly. Everyone can shoot people in movie theaters. It's just illegal. Remember that kid from Seattle that kept stealing planes? We don't eliminate planes from society or cars or anything else because nutcases get a hold of them, even illegally.

This guy could have got a pilots license and crashed a plane into the movie theater if it makes you feel better. It doesn't change the fact that a) he somehow would have been prevented from flying and b) he was ineligible to purchase firearms. In fact nothing in his past seems to show any criminal behavior that would have prevented him from doing any number of things.


Bzzzt, wrong.

We don't allow individuals who we don't deem qualified from a skill perspective to fly an airplane.
 
2012-07-24 07:50:18 PM

hinten: We don't allow people we deChimperror2: hinten: Chimperror2: hinten: Why do we not allow everybody to fly planes in this country?

We do.

We let everyone try but decided it might be prudent not to allow everyone.

Bzzzt. Wrong. Everyone can fly. Everyone can shoot people in movie theaters. It's just illegal. Remember that kid from Seattle that kept stealing planes? We don't eliminate planes from society or cars or anything else because nutcases get a hold of them, even illegally.

This guy could have got a pilots license and crashed a plane into the movie theater if it makes you feel better. It doesn't change the fact that a) he somehow would have been prevented from flying and b) he was ineligible to purchase firearms. In fact nothing in his past seems to show any criminal behavior that would have prevented him from doing any number of things.

Bzzzt, wrong.

We don't allow individuals who we don't deem qualified from a skill perspective to fly an airplane.


Flying a plan also isn't an enumerated right
 
2012-07-24 08:36:04 PM

redmid17: hinten: We don't allow people we deChimperror2: hinten: Chimperror2: hinten: Why do we not allow everybody to fly planes in this country?

We do.

We let everyone try but decided it might be prudent not to allow everyone.

Bzzzt. Wrong. Everyone can fly. Everyone can shoot people in movie theaters. It's just illegal. Remember that kid from Seattle that kept stealing planes? We don't eliminate planes from society or cars or anything else because nutcases get a hold of them, even illegally.

This guy could have got a pilots license and crashed a plane into the movie theater if it makes you feel better. It doesn't change the fact that a) he somehow would have been prevented from flying and b) he was ineligible to purchase firearms. In fact nothing in his past seems to show any criminal behavior that would have prevented him from doing any number of things.

Bzzzt, wrong.

We don't allow individuals who we don't deem qualified from a skill perspective to fly an airplane.

Flying a plan also isn't an enumerated right


The problem is that the enumeration for gun rights is open ended and as such subject to limitations imposed by the people.
 
2012-07-24 08:45:46 PM

hinten: redmid17: hinten: We don't allow people we deChimperror2: hinten: Chimperror2: hinten: Why do we not allow everybody to fly planes in this country?

We do.

We let everyone try but decided it might be prudent not to allow everyone.

Bzzzt. Wrong. Everyone can fly. Everyone can shoot people in movie theaters. It's just illegal. Remember that kid from Seattle that kept stealing planes? We don't eliminate planes from society or cars or anything else because nutcases get a hold of them, even illegally.

This guy could have got a pilots license and crashed a plane into the movie theater if it makes you feel better. It doesn't change the fact that a) he somehow would have been prevented from flying and b) he was ineligible to purchase firearms. In fact nothing in his past seems to show any criminal behavior that would have prevented him from doing any number of things.

Bzzzt, wrong.

We don't allow individuals who we don't deem qualified from a skill perspective to fly an airplane.

Flying a plan also isn't an enumerated right

The problem is that the enumeration for gun rights is open ended and as such subject to limitations imposed by the people.


Subject to reasonable limitations
 
2012-07-24 10:18:41 PM
30,000 gun deaths a year? Yeah, that's not hyperbole or anything. And even if that WAS the number; 30,000 gun deaths per year out of a population of an estimated 314 million...that's .009% of the population that dies by gunfire every year. If you were to include his 300,000+ assaults with guns every year that's still .095% of the population. So less than 1/100 of the population is affected by guns in their lifetime, and 1/1000 of the population dies from gun related deaths every year...hey, but let's go banning all the guns and getting crazy with the restrictions- because you know, GUNSZOMGWEAPONZZZOFDEATHZZZZ!!!

I like how he neglects the fact that the VAST majority of gun deaths are suicides. Oh, and you still run a MUCH better chance of dying in an automobile accident, from a heart attack, a stroke, being diagnosed with diabetes, or getting (and subsequently dying) in a car accident- than you do of dying by gunfire.
 
2012-07-24 10:23:04 PM

indoorplant: Gun laws would prevent shootings sprees?


2009: 9,146 gun related murders in the United States.

2009: Britain - 39 gun related murders.

i47.tinypic.com
 
2012-07-24 10:25:37 PM
"The following candlelight vigil is brought to you at this time with generous support from the NRA. 'NRA. Because candlelight vigils are so poignant.'"

If I ran the NRA, I'd try to snag the manufactured candles monopoly in this country.
 
2012-07-25 01:03:00 AM

kanesays: indoorplant: Gun laws would prevent shootings sprees?

2009: 9,146 gun related murders in the United States.

2009: Britain - 39 gun related murders.

[i47.tinypic.com image 500x375]


To be fair, Sideshow Bob would have simply tossed pipe bombs instead, assuming that he couldn't get his hands on a gun anyway. I don't think that gun control would do much to prevent this sort of massacre. It's more of a mentality thing. We Americans, by and large, are often passionate but not too level headed, so we seem to get more of the mass murderer nutjobs per capita.

That's the theory I'm going with, anyway.
 
2012-07-25 02:08:17 AM

Russky: Chimperror2: hinten: Chimperror2: hinten: Why do we not allow everybody to fly planes in this country?

We do.

We let everyone try but decided it might be prudent not to allow everyone.

Bzzzt. Wrong. Everyone can fly. Everyone can shoot people in movie theaters. It's just illegal. Remember that kid from Seattle that kept stealing planes? We don't eliminate planes from society or cars or anything else because nutcases get a hold of them, even illegally.



Planes have a purpose other than killing things, guns don't. That's such a stupid argument.


Guns kill bad people, too. I don't want a gun to be equal to the nut job in the theater. I want a gun to kill the nut jobs with a knife that's 20 feet away. I want guns so the 110lb, 5'2" woman being raped and shoot and kill her 225, 6'2" linebacker rapist. Guns have a purpose and it's to stop people from being being terrorized by those with evil intentions. Yes, they are misused. So are planes.
 
2012-07-25 02:11:22 AM

hinten: We don't allow people we deChimperror2: hinten: Chimperror2: hinten: Why do we not allow everybody to fly planes in this country?

We do.

We let everyone try but decided it might be prudent not to allow everyone.

Bzzzt. Wrong. Everyone can fly. Everyone can shoot people in movie theaters. It's just illegal. Remember that kid from Seattle that kept stealing planes? We don't eliminate planes from society or cars or anything else because nutcases get a hold of them, even illegally.

This guy could have got a pilots license and crashed a plane into the movie theater if it makes you feel better. It doesn't change the fact that a) he somehow would have been prevented from flying and b) he was ineligible to purchase firearms. In fact nothing in his past seems to show any criminal behavior that would have prevented him from doing any number of things.

Bzzzt, wrong.

We don't allow individuals who we don't deem qualified from a skill perspective to fly an airplane.


9/11 victims would disagree.
 
2012-07-25 02:21:01 AM

Chimperror2: Russky: Chimperror2: hinten: Chimperror2: hinten: Why do we not allow everybody to fly planes in this country?

We do.

We let everyone try but decided it might be prudent not to allow everyone.

Bzzzt. Wrong. Everyone can fly. Everyone can shoot people in movie theaters. It's just illegal. Remember that kid from Seattle that kept stealing planes? We don't eliminate planes from society or cars or anything else because nutcases get a hold of them, even illegally.



Planes have a purpose other than killing things, guns don't. That's such a stupid argument.

Guns kill bad people, too. I don't want a gun to be equal to the nut job in the theater. I want a gun to kill the nut jobs with a knife that's 20 feet away. I want guns so the 110lb, 5'2" woman being raped and shoot and kill her 225, 6'2" linebacker rapist. Guns have a purpose and it's to stop people from being being terrorized by those with evil intentions. Yes, they are misused. So are planes.


So, you'd have been the guy in the movie theater packing an RPG?
 
2012-07-25 02:39:03 AM

blahpers: Chimperror2: Russky: Chimperror2: hinten: Chimperror2: hinten: Why do we not allow everybody to fly planes in this country?

We do.

We let everyone try but decided it might be prudent not to allow everyone.

Bzzzt. Wrong. Everyone can fly. Everyone can shoot people in movie theaters. It's just illegal. Remember that kid from Seattle that kept stealing planes? We don't eliminate planes from society or cars or anything else because nutcases get a hold of them, even illegally.



Planes have a purpose other than killing things, guns don't. That's such a stupid argument.

Guns kill bad people, too. I don't want a gun to be equal to the nut job in the theater. I want a gun to kill the nut jobs with a knife that's 20 feet away. I want guns so the 110lb, 5'2" woman being raped and shoot and kill her 225, 6'2" linebacker rapist. Guns have a purpose and it's to stop people from being being terrorized by those with evil intentions. Yes, they are misused. So are planes.

So, you'd have been the guy in the movie theater packing an RPG?


No. Glock 27. Pretty useless against a rifle. A lot better than a bag of popcorn and a coke. I can't stop Russia from nuking us either. Doesn't mean I have to be victimized by every turd on the planet with a baseball bat (and yes, I would shoot someone trying to hit me with a bat or stab me with a knife).
 
2012-07-25 02:53:36 AM
kanesays:

Since you feel link comparing the UK to the US in a thread talking about shooting sprees, it is worth point out, that even they have shooting sprees from time to time.

If you want to see a almost complete success story, look at Japan. Their idea of a major shooting spree leaves 2 or 3 people dead. In the US, that's called monday morning.

/before you ask the obvious question, take note of the 5:1 population difference between the US and the UK.
 
2012-07-25 06:07:18 AM

Renowned transvestite sexologist: kanesays:

Since you feel link comparing the UK to the US in a thread talking about shooting sprees, it is worth point out, that even they have shooting sprees from time to time.

If you want to see a almost complete success story, look at Japan. Their idea of a major shooting spree leaves 2 or 3 people dead. In the US, that's called monday morning.

/before you ask the obvious question, take note of the 5:1 population difference between the US and the UK.


Japan is more suicide oriented. Sometimes nuclear suicide.
 
2012-07-25 07:44:59 AM

Renowned transvestite sexologist: Since you feel link comparing the UK to the US in a thread talking about shooting sprees


home.comcast.net

Yes, let's.
 
2012-07-25 01:37:18 PM

Chimperror2: blahpers: Chimperror2: Russky: Chimperror2: hinten: Chimperror2: hinten: Why do we not allow everybody to fly planes in this country?

We do.

We let everyone try but decided it might be prudent not to allow everyone.

Bzzzt. Wrong. Everyone can fly. Everyone can shoot people in movie theaters. It's just illegal. Remember that kid from Seattle that kept stealing planes? We don't eliminate planes from society or cars or anything else because nutcases get a hold of them, even illegally.



Planes have a purpose other than killing things, guns don't. That's such a stupid argument.

Guns kill bad people, too. I don't want a gun to be equal to the nut job in the theater. I want a gun to kill the nut jobs with a knife that's 20 feet away. I want guns so the 110lb, 5'2" woman being raped and shoot and kill her 225, 6'2" linebacker rapist. Guns have a purpose and it's to stop people from being being terrorized by those with evil intentions. Yes, they are misused. So are planes.

So, you'd have been the guy in the movie theater packing an RPG?

No. Glock 27. Pretty useless against a rifle. A lot better than a bag of popcorn and a coke. I can't stop Russia from nuking us either. Doesn't mean I have to be victimized by every turd on the planet with a baseball bat (and yes, I would shoot someone trying to hit me with a bat or stab me with a knife).


As people pack more, criminals would simply up the ante. Pretty soon, every random thug would have the gear this guy did. So people would feel the need to pack bigger weapons, prompting criminals to upgrade as well. Before long, it's full-auto and frags in every armed robbery/murder. This doesn't the number of instances of violent crime; it simply increase the scale of the casualties. But hey, at least you get to feel like you fought back.
 
2012-07-25 01:39:11 PM

Renowned transvestite sexologist: kanesays:

Since you feel link comparing the UK to the US in a thread talking about shooting sprees, it is worth point out, that even they have shooting sprees from time to time.

If you want to see a almost complete success story, look at Japan. Their idea of a major shooting spree leaves 2 or 3 people dead. In the US, that's called monday morning.

/before you ask the obvious question, take note of the 5:1 population difference between the US and the UK.


And as the stats show, the disparity in gun murders is more along the lines of 300:1. It's not population, it's mentality. We Americans are farking crazy.
 
2012-07-25 02:05:54 PM

blahpers: Chimperror2: blahpers: Chimperror2: Russky: Chimperror2: hinten: Chimperror2: hinten: Why do we not allow everybody to fly planes in this country?

We do.

We let everyone try but decided it might be prudent not to allow everyone.

Bzzzt. Wrong. Everyone can fly. Everyone can shoot people in movie theaters. It's just illegal. Remember that kid from Seattle that kept stealing planes? We don't eliminate planes from society or cars or anything else because nutcases get a hold of them, even illegally.



Planes have a purpose other than killing things, guns don't. That's such a stupid argument.

Guns kill bad people, too. I don't want a gun to be equal to the nut job in the theater. I want a gun to kill the nut jobs with a knife that's 20 feet away. I want guns so the 110lb, 5'2" woman being raped and shoot and kill her 225, 6'2" linebacker rapist. Guns have a purpose and it's to stop people from being being terrorized by those with evil intentions. Yes, they are misused. So are planes.

So, you'd have been the guy in the movie theater packing an RPG?

No. Glock 27. Pretty useless against a rifle. A lot better than a bag of popcorn and a coke. I can't stop Russia from nuking us either. Doesn't mean I have to be victimized by every turd on the planet with a baseball bat (and yes, I would shoot someone trying to hit me with a bat or stab me with a knife).

As people pack more, criminals would simply up the ante. Pretty soon, every random thug would have the gear this guy did. So people would feel the need to pack bigger weapons, prompting criminals to upgrade as well. Before long, it's full-auto and frags in every armed robbery/murder. This doesn't the number of instances of violent crime; it simply increase the scale of the casualties. But hey, at least you get to feel like you fought back.


Criminals most commonly carry small revolvers or handguns because they are easy to conceal. They neither need nor want the larger weapons for mugging people or holding up stores. Combine that with the fact that the weapons you mention are practically impossible for most civilians to acquire AND civilians are going to be carrying the same class of gun as the criminals (can't openly carry in most places and no one hauls around their AR-15 as a daily piece), and you're prediction pretty easily falls apart.

Now that doesn't rule out cases, especially along the border, where gangs and cartels are arming their members and dealers with increasingly large and more powerful weapons. Outlawing guns like the AR-15 (around $750 brand new) in the United States would make a negligible dent in those numbers, especially since you can get a full auto AK-47 for $450 in Mexico and tens of thousands of Mexican soldiers are deserting the army and joining the cartel gear and guns coming with. Address the drugs and you will do a far better job of reducing firearm crimes in the US. Gangs and cartels can't buy the weapons if they don't have the cash.
 
2012-07-25 02:28:30 PM

redmid17: Criminals most commonly carry small revolvers or handguns because they are easy to conceal. They neither need nor want the larger weapons for mugging people or holding up stores. Combine that with the fact that the weapons you mention are practically impossible for most civilians to acquire AND civilians are going to be carrying the same class of gun as the criminals (can't openly carry in most places and no one hauls around their AR-15 as a daily piece), and you're prediction pretty easily falls apart.


Criminals carry handguns because they are easy to conceal and effective. If handguns cease being effective, criminals will discard concealibility in favor of effectiveness. As for larger weapons being more difficult to come by, sure, by today's standards. You think that'll stay the same in a culture in which everybody is packing? The culture that the NRA wants to bring about?

I'm not arguing for outlawing the AR-15--or anything else. Far from it. I am pointing out the problem with the idea that if everybody carried a handgun, fewer innocent people would be killed in violent crime. Research, data, and plain reasoning suggest that this idea is flawed. The problem is far more complicated than that.
 
2012-07-25 02:37:43 PM

blahpers: redmid17: Criminals most commonly carry small revolvers or handguns because they are easy to conceal. They neither need nor want the larger weapons for mugging people or holding up stores. Combine that with the fact that the weapons you mention are practically impossible for most civilians to acquire AND civilians are going to be carrying the same class of gun as the criminals (can't openly carry in most places and no one hauls around their AR-15 as a daily piece), and you're prediction pretty easily falls apart.

Criminals carry handguns because they are easy to conceal and effective. If handguns cease being effective, criminals will discard concealibility in favor of effectiveness. As for larger weapons being more difficult to come by, sure, by today's standards. You think that'll stay the same in a culture in which everybody is packing? The culture that the NRA wants to bring about?

I'm not arguing for outlawing the AR-15--or anything else. Far from it. I am pointing out the problem with the idea that if everybody carried a handgun, fewer innocent people would be killed in violent crime. Research, data, and plain reasoning suggest that this idea is flawed. The problem is far more complicated than that.


Well no they wouldn't. Felons are not allowed to carry weapons. Most criminals are felons. Larger guns cannot be concealed and open carry is prevented by municipal or state law (where this crime is most likely going to occur) without a carry permit, sometimes even if you have a carry permit. If they are seen carrying a large, unconcealable weapon, they would be asked for a permit, and then arrested. They lose the advantages of carrying a firearm if people can see it AND they cannot hide it from the people who can arrest them for unlawful carry. It's neither worth carrying a large, expensive weapon nor buying said large expensive weapon in the commission of a minor crime like a mugging or armed robbery. The payoff from the crime isn't going to be substantial and a larger weapon makes you that much more conspicuous to everyone. That's some common sense. I'm not saying everyone should go around carrying. I'm just saying criminals won't escalate because it's unwise for them to do so. They would adapt in other way.
 
2012-07-25 04:01:37 PM

redmid17: blahpers: redmid17: Criminals most commonly carry small revolvers or handguns because they are easy to conceal. They neither need nor want the larger weapons for mugging people or holding up stores. Combine that with the fact that the weapons you mention are practically impossible for most civilians to acquire AND civilians are going to be carrying the same class of gun as the criminals (can't openly carry in most places and no one hauls around their AR-15 as a daily piece), and you're prediction pretty easily falls apart.

Criminals carry handguns because they are easy to conceal and effective. If handguns cease being effective, criminals will discard concealibility in favor of effectiveness. As for larger weapons being more difficult to come by, sure, by today's standards. You think that'll stay the same in a culture in which everybody is packing? The culture that the NRA wants to bring about?

I'm not arguing for outlawing the AR-15--or anything else. Far from it. I am pointing out the problem with the idea that if everybody carried a handgun, fewer innocent people would be killed in violent crime. Research, data, and plain reasoning suggest that this idea is flawed. The problem is far more complicated than that.

Well no they wouldn't. Felons are not allowed to carry weapons. Most criminals are felons. Larger guns cannot be concealed and open carry is prevented by municipal or state law (where this crime is most likely going to occur) without a carry permit, sometimes even if you have a carry permit. If they are seen carrying a large, unconcealable weapon, they would be asked for a permit, and then arrested. They lose the advantages of carrying a firearm if people can see it AND they cannot hide it from the people who can arrest them for unlawful carry. It's neither worth carrying a large, expensive weapon nor buying said large expensive weapon in the commission of a minor crime like a mugging or armed robbery. The payoff from the crime isn't going to be ...


Again, you argue based on current statute (and in some cases local statute, which is even less relevant). Perhaps it is unfair to extrapolate based on, e.g., Chimperror2's posts, but [s]he seems like a "no restriction on the right to bear arms, period" type. In such a culture, concealed/open is irrelevant. Felon status is irrelevant. Everybody can carry whatever guns they want. In that culture, a criminal will first and foremost look for the weakest marks. Second, they will ensure that they decisively outgun their victims. Right now, that's a handgun, club, or knife to an unarmed victim. In an "everybody carry" culture, they will necessarily upgrade to more dangerous weapons that have a higher incidence of collateral damage. Unless you think they will simply say "meh, maybe I should rethink my life"?
 
2012-07-25 05:04:41 PM

blahpers: redmid17: blahpers: redmid17: Criminals most commonly carry small revolvers or handguns because they are easy to conceal. They neither need nor want the larger weapons for mugging people or holding up stores. Combine that with the fact that the weapons you mention are practically impossible for most civilians to acquire AND civilians are going to be carrying the same class of gun as the criminals (can't openly carry in most places and no one hauls around their AR-15 as a daily piece), and you're prediction pretty easily falls apart.

Criminals carry handguns because they are easy to conceal and effective. If handguns cease being effective, criminals will discard concealibility in favor of effectiveness. As for larger weapons being more difficult to come by, sure, by today's standards. You think that'll stay the same in a culture in which everybody is packing? The culture that the NRA wants to bring about?

I'm not arguing for outlawing the AR-15--or anything else. Far from it. I am pointing out the problem with the idea that if everybody carried a handgun, fewer innocent people would be killed in violent crime. Research, data, and plain reasoning suggest that this idea is flawed. The problem is far more complicated than that.

Well no they wouldn't. Felons are not allowed to carry weapons. Most criminals are felons. Larger guns cannot be concealed and open carry is prevented by municipal or state law (where this crime is most likely going to occur) without a carry permit, sometimes even if you have a carry permit. If they are seen carrying a large, unconcealable weapon, they would be asked for a permit, and then arrested. They lose the advantages of carrying a firearm if people can see it AND they cannot hide it from the people who can arrest them for unlawful carry. It's neither worth carrying a large, expensive weapon nor buying said large expensive weapon in the commission of a minor crime like a mugging or armed robbery. The payoff from the crime isn't go ...


No one is going to repeal current statutes. Your argument is irrelevant now because you're spewing out impossible scenarios. Also nowhere does Chimp say he wants unrestricted, unregulated carry for everyone. In the few states that allow it (Alaska, Arizona, etc...), they haven't seen criminals arming themselves with more powerful weapons to mug people.
 
2012-07-26 09:12:44 PM

redmid17: You know the NRA has helped write every single substantive piece of gun legislation since 34 right?


In order to make sure that more whack jobs get guns.


"... the bill included protecting the ability of veterans designated as having psychological conditions, such as post-traumatic stress disorder, and individuals successfully treated for mental illness to purchase guns."

Were you including this to make my point? I have yet to encounter anyone "successfully" treated for a mental illness. I've encountered many people who took some form of medication and then decided that they were cured and stopped taking that medication. It's just like being cured of alcoholism or homosexuality.
 
2012-07-26 11:57:53 PM

rosebud_the_sled: redmid17: You know the NRA has helped write every single substantive piece of gun legislation since 34 right?

In order to make sure that more whack jobs get guns.


"... the bill included protecting the ability of veterans designated as having psychological conditions, such as post-traumatic stress disorder, and individuals successfully treated for mental illness to purchase guns."

Were you including this to make my point? I have yet to encounter anyone "successfully" treated for a mental illness. I've encountered many people who took some form of medication and then decided that they were cured and stopped taking that medication. It's just like being cured of alcoholism or homosexuality.


Okay, you know literally nothing about the history of gun legislation. Run along now and let the adults finish talking.
 
2012-07-27 01:30:09 AM

redmid17: Okay, you know literally nothing about the history of gun legislation. Run along now and let the adults finish talking.


Don't need to know the history, just need to know how it turns out. The minor actions are of no consequence compared to the result, little man.

The result is the intent of intelligent people. The little people are just swept up with the chaff.

The result in this case is that nothing has been done; therefore, the plan of the intelligent people was to have nothing done. The people with planning, money and desire who benefit are the truth.

What has been done? Nothing of consequence; therefore the desire to was to have nothing done and have it get worse.
If there was a desire for things to improve by the people who are planning, thinking and with money, then the outcome would be different.

There is nothing being done to keep guns out of the hands of people who are incapable of respecting them and the people around them. Any 'tard can get a gun.

There is no effort to determine who is incapable of owning a gun just as there is no effort made to determine who can raise a child. There is an effort made to determine who can drive a car. There is an effort made to determine who can fly a plane. There is an effort made to determine who can build a fence above 6 feet.

I do know what it takes to respect a weapon and use one. Most people are not capable of that, such as Dick Cheney who can not even stop from shooting a lawyer, regardless of how tempting a target that may be.

FO, pudgy little man. You do not know who you are writing to.
 
2012-07-27 10:19:09 AM

rosebud_the_sled: redmid17: Okay, you know literally nothing about the history of gun legislation. Run along now and let the adults finish talking.

Don't need to know the history, just need to know how it turns out. The minor actions are of no consequence compared to the result, little man.

The result is the intent of intelligent people. The little people are just swept up with the chaff.

The result in this case is that nothing has been done; therefore, the plan of the intelligent people was to have nothing done. The people with planning, money and desire who benefit are the truth.

What has been done? Nothing of consequence; therefore the desire to was to have nothing done and have it get worse.
If there was a desire for things to improve by the people who are planning, thinking and with money, then the outcome would be different.

There is nothing being done to keep guns out of the hands of people who are incapable of respecting them and the people around them. Any 'tard can get a gun.

There is no effort to determine who is incapable of owning a gun just as there is no effort made to determine who can raise a child. There is an effort made to determine who can drive a car. There is an effort made to determine who can fly a plane. There is an effort made to determine who can build a fence above 6 feet.

I do know what it takes to respect a weapon and use one. Most people are not capable of that, such as Dick Cheney who can not even stop from shooting a lawyer, regardless of how tempting a target that may be.

FO, pudgy little man. You do not know who you are writing to.


Neither pudgy, nor little, but that's largely irrelevant to my point. You know nothing of the legislation you speak of and I suspect you are trolling at this point.
 
Displayed 366 of 366 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report